Caneron, with all due respect, some of the data you refer to in your
post is simply not correct.
A few months ago I wrote a short article for the Rico Bugle in which I
tried very hard to summarize the issue of AGW. This article can be
accessed at www.burgy.50megs.com/climate.htm
Below I comment on some of your post:
Burgy
On 8/22/09, Cameron Wybrow <wybrowc@sympatico.ca> wrote:>
> 1. Are there sound scientific measurements which indicate that the earth is
> warming?
Answer; Yes. There are several independent lines of evidence.
> 2. Is there evidence to indicate that part of this warming is caused by
> human-produced greenhouse gases?
Answer: Yes. The first support for this came about 50 years ago with
isotope studies. I refer you to the book THE DISCOVERY OF GLOBAL
WARMING by Spencer Weart. The full text is available free online. I
bought the book.
> 3. Is the component of global warming caused by human-produced greenhouse
> gases significant enough that even a major reduction in production of such
> gases would make a significant difference to icecap melting and sea levels
> and other things?
Answer: Yes. More importantly, if such emissions are NOT curtailed, it
is possible that civilization itself will not be around in 200 years.
Admittedly, this is a pessimistic outlook; what the OPTIMISTIC outlook
is that there will be a significant sea level rise (7 meters or so)
and resulting deaths in the millions from flooding.
> 4. If the answer to #3 is "yes", what are the realistic trade-offs (social,
> political, economic, ecological, etc.) between *not* reducing greenhouse gas
> emissions, and tolerating a shrinkage in the ice caps and a probable rise in
> ocean levels of Y feet over the next X years, and taking drastic action on
> the industrial, economic and political front to reduce the greenhouse gases?
>
Answer: These tradeoffs get debated all the time on such sites as
RealClimate.org and others. Join in. Anybody may post t here.
> 5. Given the answer to #4, what is the wisest policy to follow?
Answer: See above. Most (not all) scientists see the current Waxman
bill as a "good start."
>
> If everybody, on the left or the right, would ask the questions about global
> warming in some such sequential way, public discussion could be rational and
> helpful. But the questions are often lumped together in a blurry way,
Comment: I agree.
(It makes more scientific sense to deny the fact of global warming
today than it
> did 6 or 7 years ago,
Commet: Flat wrong.
>
> Then you had arrogant scientists who, having committed themselves to the AGW
> analysis, would not retract it even when new temperature data came in, and
> even when Canadian scientists showed that the "hockey stick" model was
> flawed,
Comment: It's not flawed. See discussions on RealClimate.org
> Over at Uncommon Descent, on the other hand, there is a tendency of ID
> people to dispute many of the scientific arguments in favour of AGW
> (especially since the temperatures have flatlined and the Arctic ice has
> almost recovered),
Comment: See the discussions of this on RealClimate.org. Both pole ice
and Greenland ice are a factor and all are shrinking.
BTW, RealCimate is run by persons such as Gavin Schmidt who are real
climate scientists. If one posts data there that is clearly in error,
things can get a little rough.
Burgy
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Aug 22 12:14:48 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Aug 22 2009 - 12:14:48 EDT