As a resource manager who depended on applied science, I frequently had to help make decisions based on science that was much weaker than the current climate change scientific findings. So I adopted the practice of comparing costs, benefits and risks: What is the cost or risk of taking a wrong action compared to the cost or risk of not acting? For example, if we've had a dry summer and fall, an early winter, and reports of low fat reserves in our deer, should we have an emergency hunt to reduce deer numbers? If we take this action we might reduce winter kill and reduce range damage. If we are wrong, we've at least provided a little more recreation but we end up with a smaller population and reduced recreation next season. But if we decide to take no action and this is a wrong decision, we could end up with a bad outcome -- a large winter die-off, damaged range conditions that will slow population recovery, reduced future recreation and a sullied reputation as managers. I learned later that this decision making tool is called the precautionary approach. In the case of climate change, taking action will have costs and risks (and even some benefits such as reduced air pollution and reduced reliance on non-sustainable energy sources). But the costs and risks of not taking action and being wrong will probably be catastrophic, maybe in the short term and certainly in the long term. So the precautionary approach directs us to take action. Is that difficult to understand and accept, even by the skeptics?
Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR (503) 539-1009 (503) 246-2605 fax -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of malcolm McCallum Sent: Wednesday, 04 July, 2012 20:25 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate change - EOS Forum Its hard to interpret all that. Its amazing how any one of us can make a mistake, or a bad judgement....but it would be nice if once in a while each of us actually listened to others more knowledgeable than we are, and recognize that our judgement may be again flawed. No admissions necessary. :) Can you imagine having a moment of bad judgement leading to your setting up an automatic sprayer in someone's property w/o obtaining permission, and then setting the time w/o the owner's knowledge so that the sprayer sets off the burgler alarm, leading to the arrival of police officers who check out the scene only to get sprayed with pesticides??? None of us is beyond reproach, all of us make mistakes. I wish more of us were born with perfect judgement in all things,...pesticide application, climate change, whatever. On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 6:00 PM, David Schneider <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello all, > We have seen considerable diversity in how to respond, as > scientists, on the topic of climate change. Clearly one > size does not fit all. For those friends and acquaintances > who ask, I like to start with simple statements based on > evidence, which I value highly as a scientist - evidence > assembled by IPCC and accessible explanation of what happens > in a greenhouse and why it applies to CO2 (methane etc) > in the atmosphere. > > For policy makers, I start with evidence (IPCC) and > then to risks if no action (much less clear!). > > For those who respond with arguments we recognize > (ad hominem attacks, cherry picked data, etc) I describe the > fallacy, being careful not to stray to the ad hominem. > > For those who venture into a public forum (e.g. talk on > College campus) I like debate, not surprise. In the > debates about evolution, Stephen J. Gould mastered the > arguments, and so was prepared to debate the topic. > > For those who go political ('warmist' or 'climate alarmist' as > below) I like Don Stong's response - call them on going political. > > Finally, it helps to do some research on the person to whom you > are responding, to find out motivation ($$$ ? or something else?). > Search > Paul Cherubini El dorado > > You might be surprised. > > David Schneider > http://www.mun.ca/osc/dschneider/bio.php > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Paul Cherubini <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Jul 2, 2012, at 1:45 PM, Corbin, Jeffrey D. wrote: >> >> 1) but I made the specific point at our counter-presentation that >>> we have a great deal to discuss as to HOW society should >>> confront climate change - Cap&Trade, Carbon tax, mitigation, >>> etc. But such a discussion must begin with an acceptance of >>> the understood science. >>> >> >> The notion of anthropogenic global warming is not hardly >> settled. There is a large body of anthropogenic doubters, >> especially because global mean temps have stabilized >> since 1998 http://tinyurl.com/6ca5gzt That flattening of >> warming was not predicted by the anthropogenic warmists. >> >> 2) the general public who does have difficulty filtering >>> out the conflicting sides of the "debate". >>> >> >> The public and industry pay alot of attention to websites >> such as http://wattsupwiththat.com/ that examine the >> claims and track records of the anthropogenic climate >> alarmists in great depth and provide evidence suggesting >> global mean temps may continue to be relatively >> stable for another 20 years or so. >> >> The public also listens to industry leaders who says things like: >> "fears about climate change, drilling, and energy dependence >> are overblown" - http://tinyurl.com/6wezuce >> >> Paul Cherubini >> El Dorado, Calif. >> > > > > >> >> The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) >> Wealth w/o work >> Pleasure w/o conscience >> Knowledge w/o character >> Commerce w/o morality >> Science w/o humanity >> Worship w/o sacrifice >> Politics w/o principle >> >> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any >> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may >> contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized >> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not >> the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and >> destroy all copies of the original message. >> > > > This electronic communication is governed by the terms and conditions at > http://www.mun.ca/cc/policies/electronic_communications_disclaimer_2012.php -- Malcolm L. McCallum Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry School of Biological Sciences University of Missouri at Kansas City Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - Allan Nation 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) Wealth w/o work Pleasure w/o conscience Knowledge w/o character Commerce w/o morality Science w/o humanity Worship w/o sacrifice Politics w/o principle Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
