Rich, let me just throw out one comment from a "science, technology and
society" or policy-maker's perspective, as well as from the perspective of
people in the pews. It's rather disconcerting to be told there is a
scientific consensus about global warming, that the IPCC is on the whole
neutral and not politicized, and that policymakers need to appreciate the
findings of the IPCC as a broad cross-section of the scientific community --
and then to be told that the scientific community's consensus is way too
conservative and the IPCC's findings are too narrow! This sounds
immediately like a fragile consensus cracking apart as underlying fissures
work their way up to the surface -- much I guess like those antarctic ice
sheets. And/or, it sounds immediately like a "movement" leader (Jim
Hansen?) wants to push his agenda out ahead of the consensus. Not to say
this is necessarily the case in this instance, but it seems to follow the
pattern of many public policy issues that intersect with science.
On 3/30/07, Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 30, 2007, at 7:08 AM, Rich Blinne wrote:
>
> This is even when a comparison of the 1990 predictions going forward
> correctly predicted CO2 and correctly predicted global temperature but was
> 50% low on sea level rise! (Rahmstorf et al 2007
> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1136843v ).
>
>
>
> The link is wrong here. It should be:
>
>
> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1136843
>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Mar 30 10:20:43 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Mar 30 2007 - 10:20:43 EDT