Re: [asa] World sets ocean temperature record

From: Schwarzwald <>
Date: Sun Aug 23 2009 - 18:09:33 EDT


Then perhaps you'll realize that the reason for the discussion over AGW
being such a mess isn't just because there's this group of "denialists" out
there and, darn it, they're messing the whole debate up. Just as I think
it's tremendously naive to believe that ID proponents came along and
politicized science/corrupted science with philosophical and theological
spin, whereas before there were hard and fast rules about what was and
wasn't science that all sides respected.

Because you happen to say that the "what do we do now" question is fair
game. For others, what we do now is utterly clear, and the only question is
"how do we get it done". I've seen AGW proponents complaining that AGW has
become politicized in part *by proponents* who talk about imminent doomsday
scenarios and the like, or go far beyond what can be reasonably taken from
the models and science, etc. And if this is true - if there are people who
are more than willing to exaggerate AGW claims or predictions - then right
there you can see the opening for AGW deniers to work in. Because every
exaggeration they knock down, along with every apparent hijacking of the
issue for political reasons they highlight, helps feed into skepticism.
Skepticism which in turn may go over the top itself.

Anyway, you don't have to convince me personally about the existence of
global warming. For the hell of it I'm willing to accept that it's related
to CO2 and is man-made. What do you think should be done about it? I already
admitted I'm a fan of nuclear power being pushed in a big way. It's an
existing, tested technology that would directly address the problem, though
I understand those things take a long time to build. (Maybe not so long with
the mini-nukes? Or the micro-nukes, though I'm not sure they exist yet.)

On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Rich Blinne <> wrote:

> On Aug 23, 2009, at 3:31 PM, Schwarzwald wrote:
> Rich,
>> I won't even get into UD - I think it was a mistake for them to even start
>> talking about global warming, and while I like some of their approaches, I'm
>> not in love with their ID approach either. Lots of mixed signals.
>> But as I said, the global warming question goes far beyond the reality of
>> global warming. Personally, I'm more than willing to accept there's a
>> worldwide trend towards warming - why not? I'm even willing to accept that
>> it's AGW, and not simply a natural warming trend - an argument I've heard,
>> and I wonder if people who posit such are also "denialists"? What about
>> people who accept the warming trend, accept it's man-made (in however large
>> or small part) but aren't on-board for most of the popular measures?
>> "Denialists" too?
> Nope, not denialists. The "what do we do now" question is fair game. That
> AGW is true there is consensus. But how much CO2 is too much and even more
> so how we fix the problem without destroying the economy there is definitely
> little consensus. Trying to answer those questions when people deny the
> reality of AGW makes reaching reasonable solutions almost impossible. As an
> engineer I make sure I understand the problem before trying to find a
> solution. If you don't know the problem you cannot find the solution.
> Rich Blinne
> Member ASA

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Aug 23 18:10:22 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Aug 23 2009 - 18:10:22 EDT