Climate change has to happen. With respect to temperature, over any period of time temperature will go up...or go down..on average as compared with any other period of time. That human activities, specifically, the release of CO2 into the atmosphere, will have serious consequences is a prediction that simply has not borne out. Acid rain had obvious consequences that did not require very weak tedious statistical arguments, for example. The CO2 caused greenhouse effects predictions simply did not happen, and that's the problem with the current climate change debate. Maybe they could occur in the future, but as we deplete fossil fuel reserves and normal economic forces move us away from fossil fuels, the potential is much less than it was in any event. My problem with this is that we have done good work in educating people on the effects of atmospheric pollution, and as a result have had a great effect on industrial methodology and related technologies; reducing emissions of serious pollutants. We risk exchanging our credibility on real issues for what looks like politically motivated extremism on the CO2 issue. If the CO2 argument is to be validated in any meaningful way, related models have to make accurate elegant predictions. So far they have failed, and mainly are used to "explain" past events; and as such represent little more than classic pseudo science.
"So easy it seemed once found, which yet unfound most would have thought impossible" John Milton ________________________________________ Robert G. Hamilton Professor of Biology Department of Biological Sciences Mississippi College P.O. Box 4045 200 South Capitol Street Clinton, MS 39058 Phone: (601) 925-3872 FAX (601) 925-3978 This communication may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient or if you are not authorized to receive it, please notify and return the message to the sender. Unauthorized reviewing, forwarding, copying, distributing or using this infomration is strictly prohibited. >>> "Raffel, Thomas" <traf...@cas.usf.edu> 12/23/2009 8:15 AM >>> Of course ecologists try to link their research to climate change! Everyone wants their research to sound (and hopefully be) important, and climate change is clearly important. Just as acid rain is important, and species extinctions, and the hole in the ozone layer. And yes, this is partly motivated by a desire for funding, but also by a desire to continue doing research on important questions. I see nothing wrong with this. Claiming that global warming is a fraud because scientists use it as a buzz-word to get funding is absurd. Next they'll say that cancer is a fraud, because molecular biologists and chemists use it as a buzz-word to help obtain funding. I wonder if even the tobacco companies ever stooped so low. Tom Raffel -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 5:24 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Credibility Research grants etc ECOLOG: One of the major propaganda statements of those opposed to climate change research and actions to reduce atmospheric CO2 is that money is a major motivation behind what they claim is a fraud. Funding requests are often cited, and the claim has been made that, for example, "all you have to do to get your proposal funded is to mention 'climate change,' 'global warming,' or some similar buzz-phrase." To what extent do you think this might be true? WT No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.430 / Virus Database: 270.14.101/2555 - Release Date: 12/22/09 08:09:00
