Robert Hamilton,
Your statement implies that we mustn't confuse causes with
effects. Fine, but how do we tell what is really going on in phenomena as
complex as global climate? I don't see how one can justify an opinion
unless actually running a climate model, or subscribing to the results of a
climate model.
If cellular respiration were to rise as a result of temperature
increase, would there be a corresponding rise in photosynthesis, which in
turn would lower CO2 levels? If not, how long would it be before all
available biomass was oxidized and cellular respiration would cease? What
other forces would come into play, such as changes in cloud cover, ice
cover, ocean currents, etc., in response to the initial change? If some
of these factors had appropriate sign and magnitude, increasing CO2 level
could actually lower temperatures. This is what modeling is all about.
If your skepticism about the role of CO2 in climate change is
supported by data and a climate a model, I think you should share the
details with the scientific community. To do otherwise is like having the
cure for a major disease but not bothering to tell anyone about it.
Martin M. Meiss
2011/12/6 Robert Hamilton <roberthamil...@alc.edu>
> I see no evidence that CO2 causes global warming. CO2 levels would rise if
> we had global warming in any event due to increased cellular respiration. I
> don't know what causes global climate changes, all I know is that the
> global climate will always change one way or another.
>
> Rob Hamilton
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: kerry Cutler [mailto:cutler.ke...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tue 12/6/2011 2:04 PM
> To: Robert Hamilton
> Cc: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul
> Ehrlich
>
> Dear Rob and the rest of Ecolog listserve,
>
> I am not a climate scientist, but am an ecologist. Your idea that it is
> not CO2 causing global warming is not new to me and I know that people put
> forth several other hypotheses for the current global warming. I am
> curious about what research (a link to a paper, perhaps?) you know of to
> support your idea and what evidence you have to invalidate some of the
> calculations on the absorptive quality of CO2 effects and some of the
> analyses that support the opposite conclusion to yours (Philipona 2004,
> Evans 2006, etc...).
>
> For that matter, I would love to hear some evidence-based arguments from
> the other side: What are some of the most controversial issues surrounding
> this topic and what kind of research could be done to improve upon our
> models and convince even the most unshakable skeptic?
>
> I am sure that this is well discussed in other forums, but I would be
> interested to have us consider it here. This seems like an important
> enough issue to warrant some sensible intelligent discourse and to leave
> out the rhetorical extravagance. Let's give it a shot.
>
> Kerry Cutler
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Robert Hamilton <roberthamil...@alc.edu
> >wrote:
>
> > I would not be much of a scientist if I accepted conjecture based solely
> > on authority. My reason for not accepting the view that CO2 causes
> current
> > global warming is based on my acceptance of conjecture related to the
> > effect of water vapour on the energy of the atmosphere, and it's
> variation,
> > relative to the effect of CO2, conjectures for which there are actual
> data.
> > I have done my own analysis for my own sake and come to my own
> conclusions,
> > but saying CO2 causes global warming to me is like saying someone
> throwing
> > a bucket of water into the Pacific Ocean in Hawaii caused the tragic
> > Tsunami in Japan last year.
> >
> > As for attacking me personally, even if I worked for the coal industry
> > itself, so what? If CO2 is not causing global warming it is not, what I
> do
> > has no effect on that. I am somewhat fortunate that I don't have to sell
> > myself out to some political establishment though (I don't have to get
> > grants from politically biased granting agencies). If I did research the
> > issue I would probably look at things like "development" and the way we
> > manipulate watersheds as a human cause of global warming over CO2, and
> thus
> > would fail, so I am lucky!
> >
> > Nice thing about where I work is that while we have a tiny endowment, our
> > students graduate with the least debt of any school in the US. No Greek
> > columns, no art galleries, no mahogany garbage cans, but then we don't
> > force students into massive debt to support such things either. As for
> the
> > coal, IMHO the coal is worth more in the ground than it is to mine it
> > presently, IMHO. Maybe after generations of being ruthlessly exploited by
> > commercial and consumer interests for the sake of cheap electricity to
> run
> > air conditioners and computers, people around here might get a good
> return
> > on their labour once it starts costing a person like you the equivalent
> of
> > @2000.00 per month to heat your home to 68 degrees in the winter,
> something
> > that is just around the corner IMHO.
> >
> > The thing that bothers me about this sort of issue is the effect it has
> on
> > Ecology a a science though. I have seen go from being required in every
> > school I have known to not being so required (it is here though), and I
> > blame that decline on the emphasis on political hackery that has
> developed
> > in Ecology over the past generation. I applaud your desire to stand up
> for
> > your political view, but it they are not science and they are not
> Ecology,
> > and when any science exists to serve politics, it ceases to be real
> > science, IMHO.
> >
> > Rob Hamilton
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of
> David
> > L. McNeely
> > Sent: Mon 12/5/2011 1:49 PM
> > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul
> > Ehrlich
> >
> > Well, I don't know exactly how to respond to such a claim from a
> > professional biologist. Could the importance of the coal industry to the
> > endowment of Alice Lloyd and other economic entities in Kentucky have
> > anything to do with this outrageous claim? How much credible science is
> > needed to convince you? Does the fact that the world's leading
> > climatologists and the National Academies of Science all disagree with
> you
> > matter? Does the fact that the "conflict" you claim comes from fewer
> than
> > 1% of all reports on the question, while those few reports lack credible
> > analysis matter?
> >
> > Sincerely, David McNeely
> >
> > ---- Robert Hamilton <roberthamil...@alc.edu> wrote:
> > > Science works to persuade when it provides real data, not weak
> > > hypotheticals. Consider the issue of ozone vs CO2. Lots of real data on
> > > ozone, nothing but political hackery on CO2, so we get some action on
> > > ozone and nothing but conflict on CO2. However, we are only as strong
> as
> > > our weakest link, so the CO2 argument defines us.
> > >
> > > Robert Hamilton, PhD
> > > Professor of Biology
> > > Alice Lloyd College
> > > Pippa Passes, KY 41844
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
> > > [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Bowles, Elizabeth
> Davis
> > > Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 12:07 PM
> > > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from
> Paul
> > > Ehrlich
> > >
> > > Social and environmental psychologists have known for some time now
> that
> > > knowledge does not change *behavior* and that information-only
> campaigns
> > > rarely are effective. This is because, as opposed to commercial
> > > marketing campaigns, usually you are asking the public to give
> something
> > > up, step out of social norms, or do something that does not reap
> > > immediate benefits to them. This requires a completely different
> > > approach, including removing perceived or structural barriers to
> > > sustainable behavior. Ecologists should strongly consider
> collaborating
> > > with psychologists on any outreach program in which a behavior change
> in
> > > the public is the goal.
> > >
> > > See this paper in conservation biology:
> > >
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01766.x/full
> > >
> > > and this website:
> > > http://www.cbsm.com/pages/guide/fostering-sustainable-behavior/
> > >
> > > and this report from the APA:
> > > http://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-change.aspx
> > >
> > > Beth Davis Bowles, Ph.D.
> > > Research Specialist
> > > Bull Shoals Field Station
> > > Missouri State University
> > > 901 S. National
> > > Springfield, MO 65897
> > > phone (417) 836-3731
> > > fax (417) 836-8886
> > > ________________________________________
> > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
> > > [ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of David L. McNeely
> > > [mcnee...@cox.net]
> > > Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 9:55 AM
> > > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from
> Paul
> > > Ehrlich
> > >
> > > ---- Steve Young <syou...@unlnotes.unl.edu> wrote:
> > > > Lawren et al.,
> > > > Unfortunately, I think you may be preaching to the choir. I'm not
> > > > trying to be pessimistic, but if every ESA member were to follow
> > > > through and commit to the 'doing something', instead of just 'talking
> > > > more', what would that accomplish? Just going by the numbers,
> > > > conservatively speaking, ESA membership is around 10,000 and
> according
> > >
> > > > to the Census Bureau, the current population in the US is 312,718,825
> > > > (
> > > > http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html) So, what do we
> > > > do about the other 312,708,000?
> > > > I'm in the education arena and it is a question that I've been trying
> > > > to figure out how to answer for a long time. I know advocacy is one
> > > > way and something I work on all the time. Maybe this should be part
> of
> > >
> > > > the focus of the 'doing something' approach.
> > > > Steve
> > >
> > > I believe when we help to educate others we are doing something. I'm
> > > funny that way, I guess.
> > >
> > > The difficulty comes when our educational efforts fail, as they seem to
> > > be doing on this matter. So, I need help in knowing what to do that
> > > will actually work. So far as individual effort, I already try to buy
> > > only what I need and to use old stuff. I minimize my fuel use by
> > > driving a Toyota Prius, walking for local transportation when I can,
> not
> > > using air conditioning though I live in a very hot climate, wearing
> warm
> > > clothing and keeping the house cool in winter ................ . But I
> > > have not been able to persuade many others to engage in the same
> > > actions. Reading and understanding the data that come in seems
> > > unconvincing to so many. Science is only trusted when it reinforces
> > > already held beliefs, even if less than 1% of those claiming to be
> > > scientists provide the claims that reinforce.
> > >
> > > So, what can I do?
> > >
> > > David McNeely
> > >
> > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person(s) or
> entity
> > to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
> > material. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient or
> an
> > agent responsible for delivering it to an intended recipient, you are
> > hereby notified that you have received this message in error, and that
> any
> > review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is
> strictly
> > prohibited. If you receive this message in error, please notify the
> sender
> > immediately and delete the message and any hard copy printouts. Thank
> you.
> >
> > --
> > David McNeely
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The information transmitted is intended only for the person(s) or entity
> > to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
> > material. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient or
> an
> > agent responsible for delivering it to an intended recipient, you are
> > hereby notified that you have received this message in error, and that
> any
> > review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is
> strictly
> > prohibited. If you receive this message in error, please notify the
> sender
> > immediately and delete the message and any hard copy printouts. Thank
> you.
> >
>
>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person(s) or entity
> to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
> material. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient or an
> agent responsible for delivering it to an intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that you have received this message in error, and that any
> review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly
> prohibited. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender
> immediately and delete the message and any hard copy printouts. Thank you.
>
