Martin:
What you are suggesting here is that the proposition that CO2 increases
are causing global warming must be accepted unless it is proven false.
This rhetorical tactic is common in social sciences, and thus it is
hardly surprising to see it used here, but we Ecologists should know
better. I have no problem with investigating the fact that there is a
correlation between CO2 increases and global warming, however there are
at least three things that need to be investigated with equal veracity.
1) CO2 rises could cause global warming, 2) global warming could cause
CO2 rises and 3) the correlation could be spurious. #1 is investigated
to the exclusion of the other 2 because of political pressures. There
are many people whose careers are vested in the proposition that CO2
causes global warming and it seems to me they feel the other two
propositions are a threat to their livelihood.
I don't buy #1 because when I look at the global greenhouse effect,
water vapour is the #1 contributor by far. CO2 is relatively very minor,
and if CO2 were eliminated from the atmosphere it may well have no
effect on the overall greenhouse effect. I have looked at the models
used to support #1, and I don't see any that look at the overall
greenhouse effect, the relative effects of CO2 and the other gasses,
particularly water vapour fluxes (the atmosphere is hardly static). When
I do some simple calculations, it seems to me that the total effect of
CO2 is insignificant given the effect of water vapour alone, and that's
looking at an atmosphere with 2% water vapour when in fact it varies
from 0 - 10% and averages about 2%; as far as I know. If that's just me,
so be it.
I don't care if people investigate CO2 as a cause of global warming, I
encourage people to do so, what I object to is the demonization of
people who want to look at other causes of climate change. I am opposed
to the idea that current unsubstantiated C02 causes global warming
argument MUST be accepted. The fact that there are zero empirical data
to support the CO2 causes global warming argument and it is based 100%
on unrealistic models of the atmosphere drives my skepticism. However,
regardless of what I feel, #2 and #3 above should be investigated, as
well as other possible human causes of global warming. If it were shown
that CO2 does in fact cause global warming, I would obviously have to
accept that fact, but I don't think it is rational to take the view that
one must accept that CO2 causes global warming unless the conjecture is
"proven wrong". You want to promote the proposition that CO2 causes
global warming argument, you "prove it right"...at least make some
elegant risky predictions and if they don't turn out, accept the
falsification of the proposition.
FWIW, Ehrlich was right about population, IMHO, but he went a little
overboard on the immediacy and the nature of the consequences. A more
open analysis on his part would have been more effective, just as in the
present case of CO2 and its effect on the atmosphere.
Robert Hamilton, PhD
Professor of Biology
Alice Lloyd College
Pippa Passes, KY 41844
-----Original Message-----
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Martin Meiss
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 9:37 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul
Ehrlich
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 <[email protected]>
> 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:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tue 12/6/2011 2:04 PM
> To: Robert Hamilton
> Cc: [email protected]
> 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
> <[email protected]
> >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: [email protected]
> > 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 <[email protected]> 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:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bowles, Elizabeth
> Davis
> > > Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 12:07 PM
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > 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/fu
> ll
> > >
> > > 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
> > > [[email protected]] On Behalf Of David L. McNeely
> > > [[email protected]]
> > > Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 9:55 AM
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message
> > > from
> Paul
> > > Ehrlich
> > >
> > > ---- Steve Young <[email protected]> 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.
>
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.
