Hello all,
We have seen considerable diversity in how to respond, as
scientists, on the topic of climate change. Clearly one
size does not fit all. For those friends and acquaintances
who ask, I like to start with simple statements based on
evidence, which I value highly as a scientist - evidence
assembled by IPCC and accessible explanation of what happens
in a greenhouse and why it applies to CO2 (methane etc)
in the atmosphere.
For policy makers, I start with evidence (IPCC) and
then to risks if no action (much less clear!).
For those who respond with arguments we recognize
(ad hominem attacks, cherry picked data, etc) I describe the
fallacy, being careful not to stray to the ad hominem.
For those who venture into a public forum (e.g. talk on
College campus) I like debate, not surprise. In the
debates about evolution, Stephen J. Gould mastered the
arguments, and so was prepared to debate the topic.
For those who go political ('warmist' or 'climate alarmist' as
below) I like Don Stong's response - call them on going political.
Finally, it helps to do some research on the person to whom you
are responding, to find out motivation ($$$ ? or something else?).
Search
Paul Cherubini El dorado
You might be surprised.
David Schneider
http://www.mun.ca/osc/dschneider/bio.php
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Paul Cherubini <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 2, 2012, at 1:45 PM, Corbin, Jeffrey D. wrote:
>
> 1) but I made the specific point at our counter-presentation that
>> we have a great deal to discuss as to HOW society should
>> confront climate change - Cap&Trade, Carbon tax, mitigation,
>> etc. But such a discussion must begin with an acceptance of
>> the understood science.
>>
>
> The notion of anthropogenic global warming is not hardly
> settled. There is a large body of anthropogenic doubters,
> especially because global mean temps have stabilized
> since 1998 http://tinyurl.com/6ca5gzt That flattening of
> warming was not predicted by the anthropogenic warmists.
>
> 2) the general public who does have difficulty filtering
>> out the conflicting sides of the "debate".
>>
>
> The public and industry pay alot of attention to websites
> such as http://wattsupwiththat.com/ that examine the
> claims and track records of the anthropogenic climate
> alarmists in great depth and provide evidence suggesting
> global mean temps may continue to be relatively
> stable for another 20 years or so.
>
> The public also listens to industry leaders who says things like:
> "fears about climate change, drilling, and energy dependence
> are overblown" - http://tinyurl.com/6wezuce
>
> Paul Cherubini
> El Dorado, Calif.
>
>
> The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi)
> Wealth w/o work
> Pleasure w/o conscience
> Knowledge w/o character
> Commerce w/o morality
> Science w/o humanity
> Worship w/o sacrifice
> Politics w/o principle
>
> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
> contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not
> the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and
> destroy all copies of the original message.
>
This electronic communication is governed by the terms and conditions at
http://www.mun.ca/cc/policies/electronic_communications_disclaimer_2012.php
