What are these positions available to advocate human causes to climate warming that are worth so much money?? I am curious to know. I am aware of the industry built around use of fossil fuels and associated carbon emission - given the claim that so much money is involved in advancing claims of anthropogenic causes for climate change, I am interested to know the facts figures and comparisons behind this claim that it's simply about salaries and 'influence'.
Second question - are we still separating ecology from human behavior at this late date in human history and knowledge development? Beth Sent from my iTouch On Jul 5, 2012, at 2:27 PM, Robert Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote: > I really don't care if CO2 causes global warming or not. It is irrelevant to > what I am trying to say. If the science was being done right we would look at > a variety of theories regarding human causes of climate change, and there are > several, derive basic statements (to test risky predictions) from various > theories and test them. Some theories would make accurate predictions and > survive, others would not and would be falsified and discarded. > > We do have a whole "industry" of people promoting the theory that > anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause climate change. They are 100% vested in > that conjecture. If it is falsified they lose their jobs and or their > influence. I find it curious when some of these people claim to be > "underground" in some sense when they in fact are the establishment; they are > the man! Enormous wealth is being generated based on consequences of the > belief that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause climate change. > > The last climate model I looked at was last year, someone had a model that > included "clouds"! These models, in my experience, predict a static effect of > water vapour, when it is clearly highly dynamic, and generally they don't > consider winds, and I don't see why they cannot include the dynamics of water > vapour and winds if they are simply trying to model climate. > > As for the fact I live in coal country, my view on coal is that its future > value greatly exceeds its present value; it is worth far more in the ground. > It is somewhat of a waste to burn it as there are probably a lot of > hydrocarbon based materials that can be made from coal, types of materials > that are in great demand and whose value will increase as other fossil fuel > reserves decline. > > My last word on this at this time, and hopefully I will be able to curb my > tongue on this in the future. What we say doesn't really matter anyways, and > I certainly have no real influence in this area, and thus don't need the > aggravation of this sort of a "discussion". All I really care about is the > vitality of the Science of Ecology with respect to this issue. > > Rob Hamilton > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Ganter, > Philip > Sent: Thu 7/5/2012 11:47 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - EOS > Forum > > Robert, > > I am glad that you support the modeling efforts of atmospheric scientists > with respect to ozone-depleting substances. Their models are in complete > agreement with you: the holes should still be there. The residence times of > ODS is so long that, without any new additions, the holes should appear for > another 50-75 years. Does this agreement alter your opinion of the science > involved? The ozone models have been very accurate but perhaps accuracy is > not sufficient. > > I have not read the primary literature about climate change and so must > confess that I am ignorant of the actual global warming models. However, I > must ask you a question about them. Have you read them? Do you know that > water vapor is not part of the models or that it is not modeled in a > realistic manner? If so, some specific criticisms would be very welcome (and > I mean this sincerely). Back-of-the-napkin calculations and > it-stands-to-reason arguments have not served us well (think of Laffer's > napkin and Reganomics) but some specific criticisms are what this forum is > about. To be honest, your criticism so far has committed the very error you > have so vigorously denounced. Your criticism is bad science. But that may > be only because you did not include the specifics and I, for one, would like > to read them. If there is real criticism of global warming due to change in > CO2 concentration we (ecologists) all need to see it and to see it as soon as > possible. > > Phil Ganter > Department of Biological Sciences > Tennessee State University > > > On 7/5/12 9:29 AM, "Robert Hamilton" <[email protected]> wrote: > > My skepticism regrading the CO2 argument comes from looking at what causes > the greenhouse effect and the relative contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse > effect. As we all know water vapour is the cause of the greenhouse effect, > and lacking water vapour in the atmosphere there likely wouldn't be a > greenhouse effect. A small change in water vapour concentration, say +- 0.1%, > is a change several fold greater than the total effect of CO2, and such > changes in water vapour concentrations occur continuously. And then there are > winds.... > > I personally don't care one way or another about the CO2 argument though, > it's the bad science that I don't like. If we were looking at human driven > climate change properly, we would investigate all possible drivers, generate > some basic statements (that are either true or false), do some experiments > and see which explanations most accurately predict reality by rejecting those > that don't. Statements left standing following experimentation will have that > empirical base. With CO2 some "decider" has simply decided it has to to CO2, > and to look at anything else makes one a heretic. > > Why is it political? Consider fracking gas as one example (I use that name > just so you know what gas I am talking about). Big oil discovers this gas, a > large energy reserve. One thing we use such energy for is boiling water to > produce electricity. However we have coal, which is cheap and plentiful, and > far cheaper than fracking gas even when all you emit is CO2 and water when > you burn the coal. So what to do? Make coal more expensive so the fracking > gas is more competitive. So you push the CO2 argument to force people to > eliminate the CO2 when they burn coal so as to make coal more expensive allow > the fracking gas to be more competitive, and we do that. Note that there is > no mandate to burn fracking gas such that no CO2 is emitted! We even have a > political edict that CO2 is a pollutant, which is amazing to me. This is not > a democrat or republican thing, FWIW, as both Bush II and Obama have pursued > this. I also really don't care much if we use coal or fracking gas to boil > water, just the quality of the science. > > Since the ozone hole problem is still ongoing, I have to wonder if CFCs are > the only cause. Again, some "decider" decided is had to be caused only by > CFCs, even though that theory has not gone through the rigors of normal > science. I have no problem with banning CFCs; good riddance IMHO. I do have a > problem with the poor quality of the science. > > As we all know, any "consensus" in science is derived from the empirical > support for a theory, not arm-twisting and other political hackery. Any > political consensus is invalid scientifically. This isn't the Environmental > Science Society of America, it's the Ecological Society of America, and we > should do better, IMHO. IMHO we should be more the voice of reason and less > the voice of various political trends of the day. > > Rob Hamilton > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jane Shevtsov [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thu 7/5/2012 2:57 AM > To: Robert Hamilton > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - EOS > Forum > > Seriously? In my undegrad physics class, we did a problem that involved > calculating the effect of a doubling of CO2 concentration on temperature, > using only the fact that CO2 blocks long-wavelength infrared radiation -- > stuff that was known to Arrhenius a hundred years ago. Even though this was > just a textbook problem, I remember being struck by how close our > prediction was to that generated by complex models. Saying "There is no > evidence that changes in CO2 levels have caused any sort of atmospheric > warming" is just denying basic physics -- or claiming that the climate > system is so wonderfully balanced that some effect or other will exactly > compensate for the increase in CO2. > > On a related note, I recommend that everyone read "The Discovery of Global > Warming" by Spencer R. Weart. This is available both in book form and as a > free online text. (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm) It's a > great review of how we know what we know. > > Jane Shevtsov > > On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Robert Hamilton <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Actually this climate debate is more about hocus pocus than anything else. >> at least a it is. That climate change is occurring is undeniable, and the >> oddity would be no climate change occurring. The climate is going to change >> regardless. The issue of why is where the hocus pocus comes in. There is no >> evidence that changes in CO2 levels have caused any sort of atmospheric >> warming; none. It is a predicted outcome of climate models designed to show >> that CO2 can affect atmospheric temperatures. We know for a fact that >> atmospheric warming would cause CO2 levels to increase because all the >> various organisms would increase respiration rates. It is dubious to >> suggest that CO2 levels that we observe could have any influence on the >> greenhouse effect on earth given the overwhelming effect of water vapour, >> and the flux of water vapour, which in itself is substantially greater than >> the total effect of CO2, let alone the difference in CO2 past and present. >> >> Many of the things we do could cause climate change. The massive increase >> in runoff of freshwater from terrestrial systems; various drainings and >> fillings in of wetlands and floodplains, channeling if rivers along with >> rapid runoff through sewers and other means. A lot less standing water in >> the spring to ameliorate continental warming through the summer. Conversion >> of heat sinks like say Manhattan Island (via urbanization) into heat >> sources, possibly radiating more energy back than is input from the sun due >> to additional heat from things like air conditioners and automobiles, and >> this sort of thing occurs on a massive scale (like say Germany, which used >> to be a very moist deciduous forest) in the northern hemisphere. But such >> issues are not allowed to be investigated for the sake of the political >> hacks with their CO2 argument. There is no science to this process, and >> amazingly the public in general sees the weakness of the science. >> >> The thing of it is that what goes around comes around, and the truth will >> out in the end. If we are wrong about CO2 but right about human impacts the >> political hacks will blame us for being unscientific even though it is they >> that force us this way via the way they dispense power in the form of >> academic appointments and funding. A bit like CFCs causing the ozone hole. >> They could cause the ozone hole for sure, but do they actually cause it? >> Never seen any evidence of that. Could be that flying jet aircraft is >> causing the ozone hole, but political hacks don't want to go there! If it >> isn't CFCs, they will blame us for sure, because we are supposed to know >> for sure in their eyes in such situations. We are the scapegoat if they >> (we) are wrong). >> >> I suppose I am a "denier" because I reject politically motivated science, >> and that sort would shout me down, pull my hair and throw things at me if I >> were ever to present such heretical arguments to the public. But I don't >> need to. As the consequences of the CO2 based policies sink in, they will >> be revisited with a more skeptical eye. We move forward, but do bumble >> along, and that seems to work in general, although there are casualties >> along the way, and the way it looks now is Ecology will be one of those >> casualties, which is the real crime here IMHO. >> >> Rob Hamilton >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of >> malcolm McCallum >> Sent: Tue 7/3/2012 10:07 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - >> EOS Forum >> >> society has never been trusting of scientists. >> However, the same could be said of business with identical survey >> mechanisms. >> So what. >> >> This isn't about a bunch of hocus pocus and its not about baseless >> opinions. >> ITs about the facts that exist. >> Period. >> >> As for track records of academics, virtually all of our discoveries >> were by academics. >> Very few were made by others. >> Do your homework. >> >> Malcolm >> >> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Paul Cherubini <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Jul 3, 2012, at 10:31 AM, Jerome Joseph Howard wrote: >>> >>>> See the Goddard site at >>>> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/. >>> >>> >>> Those graphs also show a flattening of global mean temperatures >>> over the past decade or so. Therefore the flattening trend >>> could conceivably continue for another 20-25 years, just >>> like the 30-35 year flattening trends of 1880-1910 and 1940-1975. >>> IF the anthropogenic factors that contribute to warming are >>> relatively minor or moderate in relation to the natural factors >>> which may well turn out to be the case. >>> >>> In view of these uncertainties it is understandable why >>> industry and agriculture appear to be taking a wait and >>> see approach instead of making plans for a much warmer >>> world. >>> >>> The track record of academia is not stellar in the minds >>> of conservatives that run industry and agriculture. >>> Surveys indicate educated conservatives have grown >>> increasingly distrustful of scientists (but not science) >>> http://tinyurl.com/7dkgolp >>> >>> >>> Paul Cherubini >>> El Dorado, Calif. >> >> >> >> -- >> Malcolm L. McCallum >> Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry >> School of Biological Sciences >> University of Missouri at Kansas City >> >> Managing Editor, >> Herpetological Conservation and Biology >> >> "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - >> Allan Nation >> >> 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert >> 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, >> and pollution. >> 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction >> MAY help restore populations. >> 2022: Soylent Green is People! >> >> 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. >> > > > > -- > ------------- > Jane Shevtsov, Ph.D. > Mathematical Biology Curriculum Writer, UCLA > co-founder, www.worldbeyondborders.org > > "In the long run, education intended to produce a molecular geneticist, a > systems ecologist, or an immunologist is inferior, both for the individual > and for society, than that intended to produce a broadly educated person > who has also written a dissertation." --John Janovy, Jr., "On Becoming a > Biologist"
