In the face of uncertainty with potential consequences of great magnitude, the precautionary approach should rule. Under this approach it is safer and more prudent to take effective action to counter climate change than it is to take no action and risk its effects. The costs of taking action are high, but there are also benefits (cleaner air and healthier oceans, for example). The costs of not taking action are potentially catastrophic.
Our ancestors will enjoy an improved world and thank us for taking action even if they determine we were wrong. Our surviving ancestors will condemn us if we took no action and this proved to be wrong. I know, this is rhetoric and not science, but I have frequently had to deal with decision making in the face of scientific uncertainty and this is the approach I finally learned to apply or recommend. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR 97223 -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Hal Caswell Sent: Sunday, 20 March, 2011 15:12 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Data Wayne, Whether it's a "trick" question or not depends, of course, on the details. However, if you really want information about the "direct and indirect effects of anthropogenic causes of climate change" you could not do better than to start with the 4th IPCC report. This is freely available to anyone with internet access at http://www.ipcc.ch/ It represents the output of the largest scientific collaboration in history. Each volume is prefaced by a summary for policy-makers which is purposely designed to be accessible to non-specialists. Most policy-makers are not, after all, scientists. As you know, one of the essential aspects of any scientific endeavor, especially one with serious policy implications, is uncertainty. Another advantage of the IPCC reports is that they have developed the most explicit quantification of uncertainty for such a large body of scientific work that has ever been attempted. The disadvantage of that approach is that they tend to be slanted towards underestimating effects rather than overestimating them. So, read it as a conservative assessment. Hal Caswell On Mar 20, 2011, at 8:20 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote: > James and Ecolog: > > No, it's not a "trick" question, it's an honest plea for better, more convincing information about quantification of the direct and indirect effects of anthropogenic causes of climate change. "The public at large" has an even tougher time sorting out the scientific sheep from the goats, on this and other issues in science. It may be a tough question, but there's nothing tricky about it. > > The plenitude of data is the problem, not the solution. The problem is credibility of good science in the eyes and minds of "the public." "Scientists" tend to come off as elitist, patronizing snobs who decry the "dumbing-down" of we, the unwashed (if not unclean) through the only media to which we have access, e.g., TV and the Internet. Scientists sit on their hands and let these media get by with incredible distortions of science. I have tried to raise these issues to the scientific community, only to hear a deafening silence, or at best, diversionary mumbling about how we should accept "scientific" conclusions uncritically. The minute we ask critical questions (some say this is the root of science), we get condescension and the doors to further enquiry are slammed shut in our faces. > > With all due respect to climate change, for example, we, the unscientific, dumbed-down rabble who dare to enquire beyond unconditional faith in accepting what we are told by "science" are immediately classified as "deniers" (we of little faith) if we question the dictum of the day. We know a straw-man fallacy when we're hit with one, whether or not we can articulate it. This adversely affects the credibility of science in general and the subset in question in particular. We do not, for example, question whether or not there IS an anthropogenic factor in climate change phenomena, we just want to be able to start at the generalizations and follow a clear trail of the supporting chain of evidence as far as we care to. > > The "scientific" conclusions get all mixed up with each other, and we're trying to sort out the well-founded from the unfounded. Are, for example, we being switchgrassed into submitting to a wholesale acceptance of "renewable fuels" and "biofuels" and "carbon credits," or are these THE solution to switching off our apps? Is our concern that the part of "science" we are allowed to see is leading us down a gardening path where we destroy more and more complex, diverse ecosystems to plant (and presumably irrigate, fertilize, and maintain) switchgrass or corn or soybeans until now common species are forced onto the endangered species list and habitats are homogenized? > > So if you mean by "trick" that you see more than meets the eye, I would have to (just did) say aye, I agree. In fact, I don't see how a brief, direct, simple, singular question or two could possibly be interpreted as tricky--unless we are so used to obfuscatory convolutions that we become suspicious of said questions. > > What I hoped for is a simple, direct answer that reflects an as honest and complete an answer to the question as possible from those who have already analyzed the data as possible--i.e. with as little equivocation as possible. I had hoped to get individual responses that would demonstrate the hypothesis that the world climate is going to hell in a handbasket because of human activity and that it wouldn't boil or freeze if humans just stopped (just what?). While I am very grateful for those who took the time to send links and references, I had hoped for a simply-stated conclusion along with that support, I must conclude, in agreement with James, that ". . . there are plenty of data with plants and animals showing trends that are consistent with climate change, and also, a considerable amount of good logic supports anthropogenic climate change," I do not agree with his statement ("What more could a realistic person want?"). A realistic (scientific?) person wants conclusions based on sound analysis supported by solid data (or as solid as possible, revealing the amount of "slop" or "fudge" at the outset). For the very reason Roper cites, absolutely firm conclusions without any envelope of uncertainty is ipso facto suspicious. That's where the questioning, not the denying, comes from. > > James' question is a reasonable one; I tried to avoid elaboration in my perhaps-too-brief initial post, but I was not trying to be tricky. I hope this helps to clarify what seems to me (for the moment) any doubts about any "hidden agendas." I am not a "climate-change denier," I fully understand that there is an anthropogenic effect on the climate--I just don't know whether the science to date over- or under-estimates that effect, and conversely, how much other factors influence potential outcomes. follow-up questions: What do we need to know that we don't know? Or do we know everything we need to know? What are the solutions? What are the effects of those solutions on ecosystems? How can scientists increase public confidence rather than tear it down? > > WT > > PS: Thanks so much to those of you who have responded with solid references and well-thought-out responses, including James. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: James J. Roper > To: Wayne Tyson > Cc: [email protected] > Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 6:42 AM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Data > > > Wayne, isn't somewhat of a trick question? I mean, in science, we have a tough time saying that anything except the trivial is unequivocal. > > > Also, is it even theoretically possible to unequivocally demonstrate a difference in climate due to natural or to human causes? Especially when they are operating simultaneously..... And, as for prediction, I have yet to see models that based on the past do well at predicting the present, in both, natural and human dominated systems. > > > However, there are plenty of data with plants and animals showing trends that are consistent with climate change, and also, a considerable amount of good logic supports anthropogenic climate change. What more could a realistic person want? > > > Cheers, > > > Jim > > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 18:42, Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Can anyone tell me or direct me to a source that can tell me unequivocally and quantitatively what the direct and indirect effects of human influence are and are projected to be compared to the "background" or "natural" influences with respect to global temperature changes and predicted states? > > Is there any information on the conditions of life in the past which match those states and their probable causes? > > WT > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sudhir Raj Shrestha" <[email protected]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 11:35 AM > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Data > > > Hi Steve, > > In addition to Ben's comprehensive list, I will suggest you to look at NOAA's new (still prototype, we are working on it) climate portal. > > www.climate.gov > > Thanks, > > Sudhir Shrestha > > --- On Tue, 3/15/11, Benjamin White <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: Benjamin White <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Data > To: [email protected] > Date: Tuesday, March 15, 2011, 6:17 PM > > Steve, > > Contrary to adopting the approach of utilizing dumbed-down on-line climate tutorials, I find that the easiest way to initially engage interested parties is to refer them to "summaries for decision makers" and to content-rich web sites. Here you will often find scientific or policy organizations' bottom line ref. findings, data and methods. > > Consider, perhaps, some climate findings, reports and resources from: > - a summary of global environment, including climate: http://www.unep.org/geo/geo4/media/GEO4%20SDM_launch.pdf (GEO5 will soon be out and it is my personal expectation that climate change will be cast in a slightly different light) > - http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml #1 > and > http://www.ipcc..ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessmen t_report_synthesis_report.htm > - Geenhouse gas, etc. data: http://unfccc.int/ghg_data/items/3800.php > - CCSP provides an umbrella for US data data on climate change: http://www.climatescience.gov/default.php > (e.g. http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-2/final-report/default..htm) > - CIESIN and SEDAC provide a wealth of material, particular on the human dimensions of climate change e.g. the Geographic Distribution of Climate Change Vulnerability. A review of their site is will definitely stimulate discussion: > http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/index.html > > Some selected readings from the IPCC4 report, along with figures, etc. should be a good place to start. There are always developments in the realm of climate science that are worth consideration (for example, modeling the influence of grassroots climate change mitigation efforts). A review of the some of the contemporary articles in Nature, Science, New Scientist (their "ask a climate scientist" blog is really "cool": http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/12/ask-a-climate-sc ientist.html) etc. will likely provide material for a significantly enriched discussion. You are correct to be wary of data or findings from organizations which lack scientific objectivity. > > ***I am sure other people on the list will be able to add to the suggested sites above. > > Cheers, > > --Ben White > > > > ---- Original message ---- > > Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 22:01:40 -0400 > From: Steven Roes <[email protected]> > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Data > To: <[email protected]> > > Hi All, > I'm preparing to teach few days on climate change to my high school living > environment students. We are nearing the conclusion of our ecology unit, > and they've been soaking up the material like sponges--I've been incredibly > happy to see thier progress as an entire group. > > I'm working on researching for these few days climate change, and I'm in > need of trustworthy data with some discussion that, ideally, my students can > understand. If necessary, I can work to translate any discussion to more > appropriate language. > > Could any of you point me in the direction of where to find non-biased > information on the issue of climate change and rising CO2 levels that is > worthy of presenting? > > Thanks in advance for your help, > Steve Roes > > > > > > > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3487 - Release Date: 03/07/11 > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3511 - Release Date: 03/16/11 > --------------------------------- Hal Caswell Senior Scientist Biology Department Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Woods Hole MA 02543 508-289-2751 [email protected]
