Re: [Paddlewise] Winter in a time of Climate Change

[For some reason, my longer posts to Paddlewise recently have not appeared,
although shorter ones come through quickly.  Is this common?  This one was
sent out yesterday and still has not appeared.]

Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> [ I haven't seen my first reply on this topic come across the list yet.
> Curious, but I've noticed substantial delays before. ]
> 
> Mark Sanders wrote:
>> Yes it is strange how some scientific issues become politicized except
>> it ignores the fact that one of the main proponents of GW is not a
>> scientist, but a politician.
> 
> Gore may be the most well-known outside the scientific community, but he
> is not one of the principle exponents of the theory.  Surely nobody is
> so naive as to think that the scientific community is persuadable by 
> mere politicians -- whether they agree or disagree with the scientific 
> community's consensus or disparate views?  We have defied far more 
> powerful figures.

I said I would not contribute further to this debate.  However, Rich K has
pungently and eloquently enunciated a strong endorsement of the informed
_scientific_ consensus on whether the global warming we are experiencing is
likely exacerbated by human-generated "greenhouse gases."

That said, Rich's treatment will thrill the converted, befuddle those on
the fence, and enrage and frustrate folks who rail against analysis and
conclusions which use tools they can not understand or appreciate.

Repeat:  "understand or appreciate."

In a nutshell, that is the reason I find these exchanges so frustrating.
Like Rich, I have an extensive scientific background, in organic chemistry
(not earth science, although I have followed closely the global warming
debate from about 1975 or so).  In addition, I taught introductory
chemistry for science majors and for non-science majors for some 30 years,
most of it in a community college.  It is the latter which confronted me
with the very deep, intrinsic mistrust and denial many, many of us connect
with scientific analyses whose results we do not like.

The root cause is that we feel threatened by stuff like that.  Why? Because
challenging it demands mastery of thinking and tools akin to witchcraft
(partial differential equations ... certainly these parched stepchildren of
the sphere of Leibnitz, Newton, and Euler border on mysticism!) ... or
tools which are at least indistinguishable from witchcraft by folks who can
not appreciate them or work with them ... we have a GInorMOUS gap between
the science of climate predictions, its practitioners, and the rest of us.

In short, the convincing evidence and analysis is the very stuff which
p*sses off the public and turns them into "deniers".

Sadly, we will all have to deal with the consequences of global warming, a
process accelerated by denial.  When the tide begins to rise ever higher
and higher, forcing rich folks out of their low-lying mansions on Balboa
Island in Newport, CA, they will buy it.  But, it will be too late.  The
ice caps will be significantly melted, raising sea level and inundating
precious, productive agricultural zones, leading to famine in countries now
barely able to produce the food needed by their existing populations.  It
won't be good here, either, folks, as areas which have been blessed with
the rainfall needed to grow crops get "shifted" by global climate change
into regimes farmers can not use to raise the crops they are familiar with.

Now, I truly am done.

-- 
Dave Kruger
Astoria, OR
***************************************************************************
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/
***************************************************************************