"R. Walker" wrote: [in response to:] > > No scientist denies, no SCIENTIST, that global warming exists. There is > > considerable disagreement about the rate of change and why the earths > > temperature is rising and what to do about it. > You know what disturbs me the most about this whole thing.... Scientist have this > wierd idea that if they suggest a "cure" for something, the whole world will rally to > enact the cure, and that the compliance rate with the "cure" will be adquately high. > It probably is possible for the US, Japan, and maybe Western Europe to comply > with a suggested "cure"; on the other hand it is extremely naive to believe that > China, Russia, Mexico, Brazil, the Congo, Egypt, India, Pakistan, { ad a bunch...}, > would even come close to compliance. They *might* be encouraged to pass laws, > but they will be observed only in the breech. Thus, global warming is not only > going to happen, it is unavoidable. [prove me wrong, please]. Well, I was going to allow the rant and rave crew have this and stay out of it, but Richard's "... Scientists[s] have this weird idea ..." comment is so far off the mark I have to defend the scientific community: 1. This topic is kinda off the mark for Paddlewise. I would suggest we give it a rest after the next day or so (no, my ego does not require me to have the last word; this will be my only post on the subject). What is your opinion on giving it a rest, Jackie? 2. Richard's characterization of what scientists say is off the mark. As far as I can tell, quite a few prominent scientists with good credentials in climatology have laid out the consequences of "doing nothing," to the best of their ability to see that far in the future. And, other experts have suggested ways to minimize the human-caused part of global warming. Yet others have suggested "we can't predict this stuff very well." That scientists have entered the political arena is natural. What other professional group would you expect to have useful and authoritative information on global warming? Politicians? Sociologists? 3. Peter C from OZ has lucidly summarized our degree of uncertainty about narrow predictions for climate change. That is probably the fairest categorization of the situation I have seen on Paddlewise. There is much disagreement in the scientific community about whether there is a cause-and-effect relationship between generation of so-called greenhouse gases and global warming, although Kevin Whilden has a couple of pointers to stuff that suggests there may be such a relationship for CO2. And, it is tough to pick out effects we cause from what the earth/sun system would do if we were not here. 4. This situation: "scientists disagree on global warming" or "scientists can't prove there will (or won't) be global warming" is **normal** in scientific questions. Science is just a tried and true way of testing hypotheses, winnowing out the bad ones, and elevating the ones that succeed in accounting for what we can observe. Those hypotheses **change** over time, as we accommodate new information. This is frustrating for folks who want absolute proof. Sometimes there is no absolute proof. **Sometimes** a hypothesis becomes so well established by testing it innumerable ways that it becomes an "accepted theory" and we rarely go about looking for places where it fails. Climate models are in their infancy. In a hundred years, we might have really good ones. It's too bad we don't have longer life spans so we can be around to know if the current global warming concerns are valid or not. This is my last, and only, post on this subject. -- Dave Kruger Astoria, OR long-time science teacher *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************Received on Tue Dec 12 2000 - 21:17:25 PST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:30:35 PDT