Re: [asa] Creation Care

David,

I read the NYT article and agree with virtually all of it. We are getting our wires crossed somewhere. The discussion is all about policy, not science. I would like to hear every citizen's decision about where to spend our money. Here is the relevant quote:

"They are labeled skeptics less for their view of the science than their view of the proper response to the risks of climate change. Lomborg, for instance, accepts the IPCC's scientific assessment, but argues that the resources required to forestall significant climate change would be put to better use if used to alleviate other global problems, particularly those related to poverty."

So let us say that the science says that there is an 80% chance Florida will be under water by 2100. I am perfectly fine with the headlines: Congress says there is an 80% chance that Florida will be under water in a 100 years but does not feel that it is worth spending 1 trillion dollars to try to prevent this since that amount of money will still leave a 30% chance that Florida will be under water by 2125 and there are better uses for that money. That is a policy decision, not a science decision. They would have to take the heat of the Floridians and all of their friends. The average citizen has every right to decide whether they want to spend a trillion dollars to have a 50/50 chance to keep Florida above water or whether they want to reduce heart disease, for instance. What I don't want to read is the headline (which is quite accurate): Senator Inhofe and his colleagues refuse to consider releasing funds to alleviate global warming because it is a giant hoax. Or an!
 other headline I don't like: Congress refuses to fund money for carbon reduction because it hasn't been 100% proven that carbon emissions cause problems. Congress can decide not spend money on global warming because they think there are better uses for it, but they should not decide to not spend money because they claim there is no reasonable evidence for global warming.

You wrote in another post: "My youngest son has a serious neurological disorder. I am not able to treat him myself; I rely on the advice of specialists. However, I don't consider myself incapable of making responsible decisions about his care and I would not divest my responsibility for his care to anyone. I've read enough of the literature relevant to his condition to understand it in a general sense and to critically evaluate the treatment options the specialists present to me. Obviously I'm not as knowledgeable as his neurologist, but I'm capable of asking the right questions.
 
I guess I feel something similar relating to public policy. At the end of the day, I'm spiritually and physically accountable for my son. And at the end of the day, I have a similar kind of accountability relating to the creation and culture in which God has given me a stewardship. It's of course prudent to seek the counsel of experts, but I'd suggest we also have a responsibility to learn enough to ask questions and make our own judgments."

I applaud your concern and it is entirely appropriate and I expect I would do the same thing, but you are depending on the experts' opinion when you say, "I've read enough of the literature relevant to his condition to understand it in a general sense and to critically evaluate the treatment options the specialists present to me. " Fine, but you are accepting the specialist's views and depending on their medical expertise. You might even be able to come up with a novel treatment ala Lorenzo's Oil, but you still would be respecting the specialist's knowledge. That is all I ask.

In short, I see you arguing for the need of many citizens to contribute to policy decisions, not questioning the medical or scientific deccisions of the experts. I don't think any of us are arguing that the experts should have more influence than any other knowledgeable person when the policy decisions are made.

Al

>>> "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> 01/19/07 1:34 PM >>>
Ok, I know I'm beyond my post limit and probably annoying everyone by now,
but let me ask my interlocutors this: have you read the recent NY Times
piece on the "middle ground" in the warming debate? I wish I could link it,
but the archive is fee based; here's a link to Volokh discussing it (
http://volokh.com/posts/1167922177.shtml). Essentially it is this sort of
perspective I'm trying to articulate.

On 1/19/07, Charles Carrigan <CCarriga@olivet.edu> wrote:
>
> David,
>
> Forget policy, and forget the UN, and Al Gore, and whatever. Let's focus
> simply on a small part of the data of climate change science, because the
> data speak for themselves. No one is suggesting that climate change
> scientists should set economic policy. Policy can only be set once the
> public is convinced of the science - which clearly has not yet occurred.
> This is in part due to the tendency of the general public to distrust that
> which they do not understand and in part due to the scientific community not
> adequately communicating the scientific information.
>
> Re: "dramatic"
> How about instead of "dramatic", I said "exceedingly anomalous compared to
> natural variability"?
>
> I have posted previously on the concentration of CO2 and CH4 in Earth's
> atmosphere. Data exist for the last ~650,000 years, preserved in the
> Antarctic ice. Look at the data yourself here:
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/650000-years-of-greenhouse-gas-concentrations/
> http://www.realclimate.org/epica.jpg
> http://www.realclimate.org/epica_co2_f4.jpeg
>
> The concentration of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere has fluctuated between
> ~180-290 ppm over the last 650,000 years, with only a very few data points
> going just slightly above or below this trend. CO2 in the last 150 years
> has risen from ~285 ppm to present day levels near ~375 ppm. ~375 ppm is a
> ~30% increase over the *maximum* natural levels during the last half a
> million years, and this increase has occured in only 150 years. Is that
> dramatic? The concentration of CH4 in the atmosphere tells the same story.
>
>
> Furthermore, the correlation between the concetration of these gases in
> the atmosphere with global T is incredibly robust - the per mill delta D
> values also plotted on the graphs are an indicator of the amount of
> continental ice present on the globe. It is completely clear - when CO2 and
> CH4 are high, continental ice is low, and vice versa. What should we expect
> continental ice to do now that we've disturbed the system the way we have?
> And what does the data regarding the polar ice caps tell us about their
> current behavior?
>
> Re: "devastating"
> If we will agree that the flooding of New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina
> was a "devastating effect", then we have a standard by which we can
> compare. New Orleans is ~7' below sealevel; the only things keeping it dry
> are large pumps and levees. If the entire polar ice caps were to melt, sea
> level would rise ~227' - anything and everything currently below ~227' in
> elevation would be underwater. This includes most the major cities in the
> N. Eastern US (Boston, New York, Philadelphia, D.C. completely gone), all
> of Florida and Louisianna, a significant area of gulf coast Texas, much of
> the California coast and great valley (Bay Area completely gone), and the
> area around the Puget Sound including Seattle. What percent of the
> population of the US would have to move? What cost would it be to move all
> of those people and rebuild? Of course this is a worst case scenario - but
> suppose sea level only rose a small fraction of that - would a 10' rise in
> sea level have devastating effects?
>
> Where does the evidence point?
>
> Best,
> Charles
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jan 19 17:01:35 2007