Questions, that do NOT, in any manner or form deny the reality of climate change.
In 1990, citing the "best scientific models available" stated that because of carbon dioxide emissions, the Earth would warm by an average of 3 degrees Fahrenheit and the U.S. as the largest producer, by an average of 6 degrees Fahrenheit by 2020. The UN IPCC report of the same year predicted a range of temperature increases ranging from 1-5 degrees F, with the most likely expectations being 3-5 by the year 2020. The current report predicts a rise of 2-5 degrees by 2100. The New York Times, CNN, and the President of Exxon USA predicted the end of domestic oil and gas reserves by 2020. The undisputed rise in Earth (and US) temperature as of 2020 is 1 degree. Exactly how does one go about constructing a reasoned, and accurate, argument for the need to address climate change in the context of badly incorrect predictions, grounded in the best available scientific models, and over-hyped "disaster scenarios" promulgated by those with political or simply "circulation" motives. In light of this context of "error" and "hype," is it fair to tar everyone expressing questions or doubts with the same "deny-er" brush? Is it possible to constructively criticize either the models or the proposed "solutions" without being dismissed as a troglodyte "deny-er?" Is there a way to evaluate a spectrum of means (eliminating coal to carbon scrubbers to ...) along with analyses of cost/benefit ratios, human socio-economic impact, etc. and compare them? Is there more than one strategy for getting out of this mess; and if so, how do we decide (and/or construct a blend) on one that will optimize our chances? davew ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
