Re: [asa]

From: John Burgeson (ASA member) <>
Date: Sat May 02 2009 - 15:27:29 EDT

Fair enough, Rich. I note that their head guy has a Ph-D in physics,
but, as we all know, that is no particular indicator of impartiality.
Or of partiality either. I'm inclined to ake them at face value. I do
get mailings from both left-leaning sites, such as, and
right-leaning sites (ICR is one of these; I look at others, such as
Heiritage and Cato from time to time but I am not on their e-mail

I note the proviso in that they are non-partisan.
Again, that does not prove that they are.

I am impressed, so far, with the most interesting stuff to be found on
that site. As you say, they take the IPCC reports as given and try to
go from there to find solutions. At least, unlike, I
don't see any trolls on the site. does marginally good
job at refutting these; I wish they could do it more politely. But
anyone van post there, and it is tempting to "flame" when you see a
long refutted argument surfacing again -- particularly if it is from
the same person who posted it before.

There have been some articles and posts recently about the costs of
reducing (significantly) CO2 emissions. What I have seen so far
indicates that the costs are not large enough to really cause much
concern, and are certainly much smaller than if we do nothing. I have
more to learn on this subject.

I mentioned sea level change on RealClimate a couple of days ago and
received a redsponse to a USGS study on sea level and climate. The
site is

The numbers are fascinating (and scary). Here is a table of sea level
rise (in meters) if all the ice melts:

East Ant ice sheet 65 meters
West Ant ice sheet 8 meters
Greenland 7 meters
everything else 1 meter

total exposure 80 meters

or about 250 feet!

The article also points out that sea level was about 125 meters LOWER
20,000 years ago and as much as 20 meters Higher during several
previous inter-glacials. We are, of course, living in an inter-glacial
period now.

Reduction of the West Ant and Greenland ice sheets COMPARABLE TO PAST
REDUCTIONS will cause a 10 meter rise in the sea. About 25% of the
USA's population would be flooded. The article includes a map of this.


On 5/2/09, Rich Blinne <> wrote:
> You don't discount it but it's good to take into account where they
> are coming from just like you would do with right-leaning
> organizations. I label them left-leaning because their tag line is "P
> rogressive ideas for a strong, just and free America". Their CEO is
> John Podesta. The lead editor of Climate Progress is Dr. Joseph Romm,
> who was Acting Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Efficiency and
> Renewable Energy during the Clinton Administration.
> Sadly what's missing is more people like David Opderbeck. The policy
> options can be costly and I don't see a lot of people who both are
> concerned about the cost and not in denial about the problem. If
> you're looking for AGW v. anti-AGW info then RealClimate is where to
> go. ClimateProgress assumes the science and then asks the so-what
> questions from a left-of-center perspective.
> Rich Blinne
> Member ASA
> On May 2, 2009, at 8:57 AM, John Burgeson (ASA member) wrote:
>> On 5/1/09, Rich Blinne <> wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 8:14 AM, John Burgeson (ASA member) <
>> "climateprogress is the latter is an advocacy site run by the
>> left-leaning Center for American Progress Action Fund. "
>> I looked at tit briefly. On what basis do you label it "left leaning?"
>> And do you, on that basis, discount it?
>> I do see some jabs being made at a couple anti-AGW people on it one
>> for saying "God will not let this happen." Is there more?
>> Burgy

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat May 2 15:29:43 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat May 02 2009 - 15:29:44 EDT