Subject: [Tweeters] Re: Man-made (or not) global climate change (Scott R a y)
Date: Jan 6 13:39:07 2011
From: m.egger at comcast.net - m.egger at comcast.net




OK, Scott, I'll take the bait -- the evidence linking human activities to global warming continues to accumulate daily. At the same time, there is virtually NO rationale behind arguments that the current trends are related to natural phenomona, such as the solar oscillations you mention. While solar activity cycles are real, as are predictions for future ice ages, these cycles occur over thousands if not tens of thousands of years at a minimum, not over a few decades or a couple hundreds of years, such as the changes we are seeing now. Further, there is no visible correlation of such natural, cyclic?events to the changes we now see happening in the atmosphere (and in the equally dangerous acidification of our oceans), whereas both are clearly and precisely linked to increases in human population, pollution,?and industralization. Further, it is a FACT that carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases cause the greenhouse effect in planetary atmospheres; they are not, as you say, factors?"we think could cause a climate change". This is not some hippie-environmentalist "dogma" we are talking about here. The planet and life on it will obviously do fine either way. Ironically, aside from the loss of many rare, habitat-specific species, the main losers will be HUMANS if we continue to deny what is clearly the reality of human-mediated?global warming and, more importantly, to DEAL with it.?Of course, nothing in science can be proved conclusively, and science is always open to new discoveries, but it is compelling to me that precisely those who are most concerned about climate change are those who most expert in that and related field! Those who are the most vocal "climate skeptics" are the Fox News hacks and those with a political agenda favoring the fossil fuels industries. Frankly, I think the arguements of climate scientists and oceanographers?around the world are far more compelling than the scarcasm and head-in-the-sand approach of the "skeptics".

Mark


Hi Andy,


Ok, you've shamed me into it. I admit it. Global warming is real. ?No, really, it is. ?Really. ?


And thanks for the invitation to the Yakima Audubon meeting. I'm sure there will be some beautiful slides.


A more careful read of my original tongue-in-cheek comment regarding a possible explanation for the sudden bird death phenomenon questions not whether we are seeing global warming. We are. The real question is whether global climate change is man-made or part of a natural oscillation, the latter of which we see volumes of evidence for in the fossil record, and more recently in studies of solar fluctuations.?


The most "compelling" evidence for man being the culprit (and by extension, the savior) goes something like this. ?


Humans have been on the scene during the most recent temperature rise, engaged in activities that we think could cause a climate change, therefore humans are causing the climate to change. ?After that, there is a lot of theory that can never be proven or disproven, which by itself is scientifically inedible. ?


It has been a scant couple of decades since the earth's inhabitants were warned of looming global deep freeze. And with a virtually instantaneous about-face we somehow find the current idea more compelling?


The inquiring thinker has reason to foster a healthy bit of skepticism of this kind of thinking and most other dogma. ?Without wishing to pigeonhole Tweeterdom, it could be said by observation that most here are not your average skeptics, and not ones to exhibit such sacred fervor on any other topic.


And it is interesting to note how often an advocate's answer to an environmental problem is to immediately look for the man-made global climate change angle, urging others to take their pat answer at face value, while at the same time doing precious little to change their own lifestyles in the meaningful ways they would so easily impose on others. ?



Nowadays the nearly universal reaction of trying to shame, belittle or embarrass anyone with questions about the idea of man-made global climate change flies in the face of dearly-held ideas of scientific enquiry. ?Placing off limits the simple questioning of an idea is the definition of dogma, canon law and ideology. ?It would be?embarrassing?for a true scientist to be doctrinaire on such a topic, because actually by definition the two cannot coexist. Yet this is the startling mind set of many advocates.?


So, should we be concerned about global warming? ?Maybe, maybe not.?


And the final argument is always, "Better safe than sorry...so YOU had better shape up your lifestyle just in case."


PS: Andy and I have known each other for 22 years and have spent considerable time together burning fossil fuels on our birding trips to Okanogan and Douglas Counties.




Scott R
Yakima, WA
mryakima at gmail dot com