Re: [Phys-l] what kind of scientific suppression is this?

[Rick Tarara <rtarara@saintmarys.edu>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bernard Cleyet" <bernardcleyet@redshift.com>
> > Suffice it to say that both
> > extremes of the Global warming debate have played hard and fast with the
> > facts, that governments (all) tend to shape those same facts to their
> > purposes,
> examples (on the sky is falling side) please.
Al Gore--and those who overemphasize worst-case scenarios (basically scare 
tactics).  No balance, one-sided arguments that ignore completely other 
learned opinions.

> > and despite the illusion of unanimity on the issue amongst
> > scientists, we need only look to this list to see that many here are not 
> > so
> > ready to get on board the 'humans are destroying the planet' express.
> It's the unanimity ? of the climate scientists that counts, IMAO.

But it has now become in the self-interest of the climate scientists to push 
Global Warming scenarios that get them more funding.  The problem with much 
of the 'science' is that it rests on computational models--models that are 
so complex that virtually no two variations tend to agree.  Don't get me 
wrong, that's not really a fatal flaw in the work, but it is one that 
injects a real sense of unertainty both in the predictions from and cause of 
the actual data.

> Worse than the pop. rise is the huge increase in the prosperity in the
> former third world, which will increase disproportionally the CO2
> emission, etc.

Of course, and a 25-50% roll back by the U.S., Europe, and Japan won't mean 
zip if China and India fully develop the fossil energy resources.

> >
> bc, who wonders the result of the trade off in the new use of a
> mechanical dish washer instead of the bc one.

Well you can always go live with the Amish.  It should be self evident that 
a 'modern, 21st century life-style (standard of living)' involves a lot of 
energy use.  While we should work towards being efficient in that use and 
eliminating truly wasteful uses, the history of human progress strongly 
suggests that we really need to focus on providing much MORE energy for 
human use, but with minimal environmental consequences.  That is a tough, 
but not impossible, job.  {BTW:  Try figuring out how many people could be 
supported (world-wide) by Amish farming techniques and you'll come to 
understand why we can't turn the clock back.  Besides, the 'good old days' 
seldom if ever were!

Rick