Re: [asa] Climate change & Christianity

From: John Burgeson (ASA member) <>
Date: Mon Nov 02 2009 - 16:54:56 EST

On 11/2/09, Cameron Wybrow <> wrote:

"I loathe all remarks made in the debate, on both sides, which are
politically partisan, and I don't exempt some of the scientists
themselves (on both sides) from joining in the political fray. My
impression is that most of the people on this list who write about AGW
have chosen to dismiss all criticisms of AGW models, even those coming
from very competent earth scientists (which is surprising to me, as
it's unclear to me whether any AGW-supporter here has any formal
training in any of the earth sciences, and without such training, I
don't know how anyone could be sure whether or not the AGW models are
sound). The critics of AGW may be completely wrong, but I don't like
the way they are dismissed; it smacks too much of the way that critics
of Darwinian mechanisms are dismissed. Theoretical arguments should
be met with theoretical criticism, not with ridicule,"

I mostly agree with those remarks, Cameron. I hope I am not among
those who "dismiss all criticisms." I don't mean to be.

Nor do I claim expertise as a cimate scientist. That simply means I
know I do not have the expertise to DO climate science.

I do claim some expertise, however, in the examination of evidences /
arguments / data on the subject. Maybe I claim too much; I don't think
so although some others (our beloved Janice, for example.) think so.
<G> Some of my comments were directed at her; I thought her emails
were coming from the ASA list since Gmail collects incoming stuff by
subject line. I intend not to do that again.

I have read a lot of the ant-AGW stuff. Here are the top three reasons
I discount it:

1 I have been reading three journals, SCIENCE, NEW SCIENTIST and
NATURE, at the local college library for about six months now. So far
I have come across no -- zero -- nada -- articles in any of these
three that even hints that AGW,as claimed by the 619 scientists who
make up the IPCC is incorrect in their five base findings --

CO2 is a greenhouse gas --
humanity emits a lot of it --
CO2 is building in the atmosphere
The "new" CO2 comes from the burning of fossil fuels, oil, coal, etc.
The planet is warming

The IPCC claim, based on those five irrefuable pieces of data, is that
the planet will definitely warm up as a result.

I'd like to find a scientific peer-reviewed article which would shake
any of the above.

There are various views on how bad it will get and how much damage to
civilization will occur. The worst scenario suggests it is already too
late and we will all die. The best says will will enter an "Eden" of a
warmer and more productive planet. The middle outlooks generally say
that humanity will survive; about 1,000,000,000 people on the
seacoasts will either drown or have to migrate inland.

2. I have read a number of anti-AGW articles and books. They seem to
all be cherry picking the data -- sometimes they flat out lie.

3. I wrote my own short article on the science of AGW for a Colorado
newspaper. A copy of this is at I have
challenged a number of people (including Janice BTW) to read it and
tell me where I have erred. To date the number that have responded is
-- you guess it -- none. Zero. Nada.

So -- to this science-educated person, the conclusion seems pretty
obvious. To ignore the IPCC findings is to risk the lives of billions
of people. The cost to do it is pretty small in comparison, even if
you believe the far out financials of the American right.


To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Nov 2 16:55:21 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Nov 02 2009 - 16:55:21 EST