---- Robert Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote: > I see no evidence that CO2 causes global warming. CO2 levels would rise if we > had global warming in any event due to increased cellular respiration. I > don't know what causes global climate changes, all I know is that the global > climate will always change one way or another.
Rob, read the literature, and you'll see the evidence. I mean the climatological literature, not the stuff published by those who are working at the behest of the fossil fuel companies. mcneely > > > -----Original Message----- > From: kerry Cutler [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tue 12/6/2011 2:04 PM > To: Robert Hamilton > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul > Ehrlich > > Dear Rob and the rest of Ecolog listserve, > > I am not a climate scientist, but am an ecologist. Your idea that it is > not CO2 causing global warming is not new to me and I know that people put > forth several other hypotheses for the current global warming. I am > curious about what research (a link to a paper, perhaps?) you know of to > support your idea and what evidence you have to invalidate some of the > calculations on the absorptive quality of CO2 effects and some of the > analyses that support the opposite conclusion to yours (Philipona 2004, > Evans 2006, etc...). > > For that matter, I would love to hear some evidence-based arguments from > the other side: What are some of the most controversial issues surrounding > this topic and what kind of research could be done to improve upon our > models and convince even the most unshakable skeptic? > > I am sure that this is well discussed in other forums, but I would be > interested to have us consider it here. This seems like an important > enough issue to warrant some sensible intelligent discourse and to leave > out the rhetorical extravagance. Let's give it a shot. > > Kerry Cutler > > > On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Robert Hamilton <[email protected]>wrote: > > > I would not be much of a scientist if I accepted conjecture based solely > > on authority. My reason for not accepting the view that CO2 causes current > > global warming is based on my acceptance of conjecture related to the > > effect of water vapour on the energy of the atmosphere, and it's variation, > > relative to the effect of CO2, conjectures for which there are actual data. > > I have done my own analysis for my own sake and come to my own conclusions, > > but saying CO2 causes global warming to me is like saying someone throwing > > a bucket of water into the Pacific Ocean in Hawaii caused the tragic > > Tsunami in Japan last year. > > > > As for attacking me personally, even if I worked for the coal industry > > itself, so what? If CO2 is not causing global warming it is not, what I do > > has no effect on that. I am somewhat fortunate that I don't have to sell > > myself out to some political establishment though (I don't have to get > > grants from politically biased granting agencies). If I did research the > > issue I would probably look at things like "development" and the way we > > manipulate watersheds as a human cause of global warming over CO2, and thus > > would fail, so I am lucky! > > > > Nice thing about where I work is that while we have a tiny endowment, our > > students graduate with the least debt of any school in the US. No Greek > > columns, no art galleries, no mahogany garbage cans, but then we don't > > force students into massive debt to support such things either. As for the > > coal, IMHO the coal is worth more in the ground than it is to mine it > > presently, IMHO. Maybe after generations of being ruthlessly exploited by > > commercial and consumer interests for the sake of cheap electricity to run > > air conditioners and computers, people around here might get a good return > > on their labour once it starts costing a person like you the equivalent of > > @2000.00 per month to heat your home to 68 degrees in the winter, something > > that is just around the corner IMHO. > > > > The thing that bothers me about this sort of issue is the effect it has on > > Ecology a a science though. I have seen go from being required in every > > school I have known to not being so required (it is here though), and I > > blame that decline on the emphasis on political hackery that has developed > > in Ecology over the past generation. I applaud your desire to stand up for > > your political view, but it they are not science and they are not Ecology, > > and when any science exists to serve politics, it ceases to be real > > science, IMHO. > > > > Rob Hamilton > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of David > > L. McNeely > > Sent: Mon 12/5/2011 1:49 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul > > Ehrlich > > > > Well, I don't know exactly how to respond to such a claim from a > > professional biologist. Could the importance of the coal industry to the > > endowment of Alice Lloyd and other economic entities in Kentucky have > > anything to do with this outrageous claim? How much credible science is > > needed to convince you? Does the fact that the world's leading > > climatologists and the National Academies of Science all disagree with you > > matter? Does the fact that the "conflict" you claim comes from fewer than > > 1% of all reports on the question, while those few reports lack credible > > analysis matter? > > > > Sincerely, David McNeely > > > > ---- Robert Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Science works to persuade when it provides real data, not weak > > > hypotheticals. Consider the issue of ozone vs CO2. Lots of real data on > > > ozone, nothing but political hackery on CO2, so we get some action on > > > ozone and nothing but conflict on CO2. However, we are only as strong as > > > our weakest link, so the CO2 argument defines us. > > > > > > Robert Hamilton, PhD > > > Professor of Biology > > > Alice Lloyd College > > > Pippa Passes, KY 41844 > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bowles, Elizabeth Davis > > > Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 12:07 PM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul > > > Ehrlich > > > > > > Social and environmental psychologists have known for some time now that > > > knowledge does not change *behavior* and that information-only campaigns > > > rarely are effective. This is because, as opposed to commercial > > > marketing campaigns, usually you are asking the public to give something > > > up, step out of social norms, or do something that does not reap > > > immediate benefits to them. This requires a completely different > > > approach, including removing perceived or structural barriers to > > > sustainable behavior. Ecologists should strongly consider collaborating > > > with psychologists on any outreach program in which a behavior change in > > > the public is the goal. > > > > > > See this paper in conservation biology: > > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01766.x/full > > > > > > and this website: > > > http://www.cbsm.com/pages/guide/fostering-sustainable-behavior/ > > > > > > and this report from the APA: > > > http://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-change.aspx > > > > > > Beth Davis Bowles, Ph.D. > > > Research Specialist > > > Bull Shoals Field Station > > > Missouri State University > > > 901 S. National > > > Springfield, MO 65897 > > > phone (417) 836-3731 > > > fax (417) 836-8886 > > > ________________________________________ > > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > > > [[email protected]] On Behalf Of David L. McNeely > > > [[email protected]] > > > Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 9:55 AM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul > > > Ehrlich > > > > > > ---- Steve Young <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Lawren et al., > > > > Unfortunately, I think you may be preaching to the choir. I'm not > > > > trying to be pessimistic, but if every ESA member were to follow > > > > through and commit to the 'doing something', instead of just 'talking > > > > more', what would that accomplish? Just going by the numbers, > > > > conservatively speaking, ESA membership is around 10,000 and according > > > > > > > to the Census Bureau, the current population in the US is 312,718,825 > > > > ( > > > > http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html) So, what do we > > > > do about the other 312,708,000? > > > > I'm in the education arena and it is a question that I've been trying > > > > to figure out how to answer for a long time. I know advocacy is one > > > > way and something I work on all the time. Maybe this should be part of > > > > > > > the focus of the 'doing something' approach. > > > > Steve > > > > > > I believe when we help to educate others we are doing something. I'm > > > funny that way, I guess. > > > > > > The difficulty comes when our educational efforts fail, as they seem to > > > be doing on this matter. So, I need help in knowing what to do that > > > will actually work. So far as individual effort, I already try to buy > > > only what I need and to use old stuff. I minimize my fuel use by > > > driving a Toyota Prius, walking for local transportation when I can, not > > > using air conditioning though I live in a very hot climate, wearing warm > > > clothing and keeping the house cool in winter ................ . But I > > > have not been able to persuade many others to engage in the same > > > actions. Reading and understanding the data that come in seems > > > unconvincing to so many. Science is only trusted when it reinforces > > > already held beliefs, even if less than 1% of those claiming to be > > > scientists provide the claims that reinforce. > > > > > > So, what can I do? > > > > > > David McNeely > > > > > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person(s) or entity > > to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged > > material. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient or an > > agent responsible for delivering it to an intended recipient, you are > > hereby notified that you have received this message in error, and that any > > review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly > > prohibited. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender > > immediately and delete the message and any hard copy printouts. Thank you. > > > > -- > > David McNeely > > > > > > > > > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person(s) or entity > > to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged > > material. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient or an > > agent responsible for delivering it to an intended recipient, you are > > hereby notified that you have received this message in error, and that any > > review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly > > prohibited. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender > > immediately and delete the message and any hard copy printouts. Thank you. > > > > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person(s) or entity to > which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged > material. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient or an > agent responsible for delivering it to an intended recipient, you are hereby > notified that you have received this message in error, and that any review, > dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly > prohibited. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender > immediately and delete the message and any hard copy printouts. Thank you. -- David McNeely
