James and Ecolog:
No, it's not a "trick" question, it's an honest plea for better, more
convincing information about quantification of the direct and indirect effects
of anthropogenic causes of climate change. "The public at large" has an even
tougher time sorting out the scientific sheep from the goats, on this and other
issues in science. It may be a tough question, but there's nothing tricky about
it.
The plenitude of data is the problem, not the solution. The problem is
credibility of good science in the eyes and minds of "the public." "Scientists"
tend to come off as elitist, patronizing snobs who decry the "dumbing-down" of
we, the unwashed (if not unclean) through the only media to which we have
access, e.g., TV and the Internet. Scientists sit on their hands and let these
media get by with incredible distortions of science. I have tried to raise
these issues to the scientific community, only to hear a deafening silence, or
at best, diversionary mumbling about how we should accept "scientific"
conclusions uncritically. The minute we ask critical questions (some say this
is the root of science), we get condescension and the doors to further enquiry
are slammed shut in our faces.
With all due respect to climate change, for example, we, the unscientific,
dumbed-down rabble who dare to enquire beyond unconditional faith in accepting
what we are told by "science" are immediately classified as "deniers" (we of
little faith) if we question the dictum of the day. We know a straw-man fallacy
when we're hit with one, whether or not we can articulate it. This adversely
affects the credibility of science in general and the subset in question in
particular. We do not, for example, question whether or not there IS an
anthropogenic factor in climate change phenomena, we just want to be able to
start at the generalizations and follow a clear trail of the supporting chain
of evidence as far as we care to.
The "scientific" conclusions get all mixed up with each other, and we're trying
to sort out the well-founded from the unfounded. Are, for example, we being
switchgrassed into submitting to a wholesale acceptance of "renewable fuels"
and "biofuels" and "carbon credits," or are these THE solution to switching off
our apps? Is our concern that the part of "science" we are allowed to see is
leading us down a gardening path where we destroy more and more complex,
diverse ecosystems to plant (and presumably irrigate, fertilize, and maintain)
switchgrass or corn or soybeans until now common species are forced onto the
endangered species list and habitats are homogenized?
So if you mean by "trick" that you see more than meets the eye, I would have to
(just did) say aye, I agree. In fact, I don't see how a brief, direct, simple,
singular question or two could possibly be interpreted as tricky--unless we are
so used to obfuscatory convolutions that we become suspicious of said
questions.
What I hoped for is a simple, direct answer that reflects an as honest and
complete an answer to the question as possible from those who have already
analyzed the data as possible--i.e. with as little equivocation as possible. I
had hoped to get individual responses that would demonstrate the hypothesis
that the world climate is going to hell in a handbasket because of human
activity and that it wouldn't boil or freeze if humans just stopped (just
what?). While I am very grateful for those who took the time to send links and
references, I had hoped for a simply-stated conclusion along with that support,
I must conclude, in agreement with James, that ". . . there are plenty of data
with plants and animals showing trends that are consistent with climate change,
and also, a considerable amount of good logic supports anthropogenic climate
change," I do not agree with his statement ("What more could a realistic person
want?"). A realistic (scientific?) person wants conclusions based on sound
analysis supported by solid data (or as solid as possible, revealing the amount
of "slop" or "fudge" at the outset). For the very reason Roper cites,
absolutely firm conclusions without any envelope of uncertainty is ipso facto
suspicious. That's where the questioning, not the denying, comes from.
James' question is a reasonable one; I tried to avoid elaboration in my
perhaps-too-brief initial post, but I was not trying to be tricky. I hope this
helps to clarify what seems to me (for the moment) any doubts about any "hidden
agendas." I am not a "climate-change denier," I fully understand that there is
an anthropogenic effect on the climate--I just don't know whether the science
to date over- or under-estimates that effect, and conversely, how much other
factors influence potential outcomes. follow-up questions: What do we need to
know that we don't know? Or do we know everything we need to know? What are the
solutions? What are the effects of those solutions on ecosystems? How can
scientists increase public confidence rather than tear it down?
WT
PS: Thanks so much to those of you who have responded with solid references and
well-thought-out responses, including James.
----- Original Message -----
From: James J. Roper
To: Wayne Tyson
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 6:42 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Data
Wayne, isn't somewhat of a trick question? I mean, in science, we have a
tough time saying that anything except the trivial is unequivocal.
Also, is it even theoretically possible to unequivocally demonstrate a
difference in climate due to natural or to human causes? Especially when they
are operating simultaneously..... And, as for prediction, I have yet to see
models that based on the past do well at predicting the present, in both,
natural and human dominated systems.
However, there are plenty of data with plants and animals showing trends that
are consistent with climate change, and also, a considerable amount of good
logic supports anthropogenic climate change. What more could a realistic
person want?
Cheers,
Jim
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 18:42, Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi all,
Can anyone tell me or direct me to a source that can tell me unequivocally
and quantitatively what the direct and indirect effects of human influence are
and are projected to be compared to the "background" or "natural" influences
with respect to global temperature changes and predicted states?
Is there any information on the conditions of life in the past which match
those states and their probable causes?
WT
----- Original Message ----- From: "Sudhir Raj Shrestha"
<[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Data
Hi Steve,
In addition to Ben's comprehensive list, I will suggest you to look at
NOAA's new (still prototype, we are working on it) climate portal.
www.climate.gov
Thanks,
Sudhir Shrestha
--- On Tue, 3/15/11, Benjamin White <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Benjamin White <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Data
To: [email protected]
Date: Tuesday, March 15, 2011, 6:17 PM
Steve,
Contrary to adopting the approach of utilizing dumbed-down on-line climate
tutorials, I find that the easiest way to initially engage interested parties
is to refer them to "summaries for decision makers" and to content-rich web
sites. Here you will often find scientific or policy organizations' bottom line
ref. findings, data and methods.
Consider, perhaps, some climate findings, reports and resources from:
- a summary of global environment, including climate:
http://www.unep.org/geo/geo4/media/GEO4%20SDM_launch.pdf (GEO5 will soon be out
and it is my personal expectation that climate change will be cast in a
slightly different light)
-
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml#1
and
http://www.ipcc..ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm
- Geenhouse gas, etc. data: http://unfccc.int/ghg_data/items/3800.php
- CCSP provides an umbrella for US data data on climate change:
http://www.climatescience.gov/default.php
(e.g.
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-2/final-report/default..htm)
- CIESIN and SEDAC provide a wealth of material, particular on the human
dimensions of climate change e.g. the Geographic Distribution of Climate Change
Vulnerability. A review of their site is will definitely stimulate discussion:
http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/index.html
Some selected readings from the IPCC4 report, along with figures, etc.
should be a good place to start. There are always developments in the realm of
climate science that are worth consideration (for example, modeling the
influence of grassroots climate change mitigation efforts). A review of the
some of the contemporary articles in Nature, Science, New Scientist (their "ask
a climate scientist" blog is really "cool":
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/12/ask-a-climate-scientist.html)
etc. will likely provide material for a significantly enriched discussion. You
are correct to be wary of data or findings from organizations which lack
scientific objectivity.
***I am sure other people on the list will be able to add to the suggested
sites above.
Cheers,
--Ben White
---- Original message ----
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 22:01:40 -0400
From: Steven Roes <[email protected]>
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Data
To: <[email protected]>
Hi All,
I'm preparing to teach few days on climate change to my high school living
environment students. We are nearing the conclusion of our ecology unit,
and they've been soaking up the material like sponges--I've been
incredibly
happy to see thier progress as an entire group.
I'm working on researching for these few days climate change, and I'm in
need of trustworthy data with some discussion that, ideally, my students
can
understand. If necessary, I can work to translate any discussion to more
appropriate language.
Could any of you point me in the direction of where to find non-biased
information on the issue of climate change and rising CO2 levels that is
worthy of presenting?
Thanks in advance for your help,
Steve Roes
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3487 - Release Date: 03/07/11
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3511 - Release Date: 03/16/11
