Re: [asa] Re: Confirmation bias among GW dissenters, but ...

From: John Burgeson (ASA member) <>
Date: Tue Apr 28 2009 - 09:55:22 EDT

Thanks, Fred, for a good reply.

Bill wrote: "Geologists (some of them anyway) are not as likely to support AGW,
because there have been times in the past where CO2 concentration as
much higher than it is today."

That does not seem to be a credible argument, Bill. Yes, CO2 has been
greater. And at the time the temperature was 6 degrees or so higher
and the seas were 6 to 7 feet higher too, since the pole ice had

The climate scientists at RealClimate do not appear to deny this.
Rather, when the subject comes up (there is a plethora of dialog on
other aspects), it is either assumed or expressly pointed out that a
sea rise of that magnitude would pretty much wipe out Galveston,
Sacramento, the Netherlands, Bangledesh, much of Indionesia, the ports
of New York, the Gpresent Gulf coast, etc. etc. Estimates of death and
destruction vary depending on how fast this takes place. Estimates of
refugees likewise (if people survive, they will migrate inland).

Temperature is the other issue. Will you want to live in Phoenix? Will
you be ABLE to live in Phoenix?


To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Apr 28 09:55:28 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Apr 28 2009 - 09:55:28 EDT