Re: [asa] Letters to Sam Harris a "Maladjusted Misotheist"

From: PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
Date: Wed Dec 06 2006 - 23:39:08 EST

I appreciate your friendly words, John. And yes you are correct, there
are not many scientific papers that doubt the fact of common warming.
In some ways this argument seems to mimic the evolution 'wars'. While
most acknowledge the fact of evolution, there are some who doubt that
the common mechanisms of evolution are sufficient to explain the data.
Similarly we observe how some make a big deal out of some unknowns to
argue that this surely disproves evolution (global warming) and when
science does explain the data/observations, new areas of our ignorance
are sought to argue against evolution/global warming. In the mean
time, these people seem unaware that their efforts to rebut, have
actually strengthened the arguments.

As far as the Global Warming debate is concerned, I see that there
appears to be a lot of confusion on the web. So let me also state on
the record that there are extremists on both sides of the argument:
while some suggest that there is no credible data to support a
significant human contribution to global warming, there are also
others who may be overselling the global warming problem. Which is why
Al Gore's documentary, and now Keano Reeves' are so important as they
help to reach the average Joe and in Keano's case, many evangelicals
who may be less motivated to listen to Al Gore
(http://www.thegreatwarming.com/).

Even if the Hockey Stick had suffered from the problems mentioned by
those who trivialize the human effect on global warming, several
reports since then have made it clear that the data are strongly
supporting the most important conclusions and claims of the original
authors.

In fact, although Janice seems to suggest, or at least quote (with
approval I assume), that climate models have failed to model the
trends, it has taken me only a few minutes of searching to put that
claim to rest as an urban myth. In fact, several climate models are
doing quite well in tracking and predicting (much tougher) future
temperature trends. Yes, various models show significant (several
degrees) discrepancies although all clearly show an upward trend of
warming. Once data and models will improve further, it seems
reasonable to assume that like the Ozone depletion, global warming
will find acceptance by most scientists, and the common public.

For instance copies of the NRC report "Surface Temperature
Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years" can be downloaded for free
here: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html

the report was announced in:
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676

Another good resource is: http://www.ipcc.ch/

I am still not clear why Janice seems to be so opposed to these clear
findings? Is it based on science? Faith? Hearsay?

Pim

On 12/6/06, Carol or John Burgeson <burgytwo@juno.com> wrote:
> Pim:
>
> Thanks for switching accounts. I find your posts usually much worth
> reading and this makes it a lot easier.
>
> I gather you are debating Janice. She, as is Vernon, appears to be a
> "true believer" and as such is fundamentally undebatable. But good luck.
>
> On the global warming problem, see THE REPUBLICAN WAR ON SCIENCE which
> has much to say about it. The chief argument against the contrarians IMHO
> is that a survey of scientific (not popular) articles on it found that
> arguments against it were a null set.
>
> Burgy
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Dec 6 23:40:06 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 06 2006 - 23:40:06 EST