Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] About the "why" and "how questins."



Speaking of exaggerating one's position ............. Of course, even the graphs might be a little beyond the pale since they involve making judgments about proxies and all.


Scientists should stick to the facts, and that includes showing both CO2 and temperature trends for the last 500,000 years. it does not include, as some have done, implying that there is a causal relationship in those 500,000 year graphs, because that's not sticking to the facts. Sticking to the facts does not include predicting dramatic rises in sea level when those predictions have to be retracted later. I am against scientists presenting predictions as if they are facts. That article I linked to does just that.

The public can figure things out when presented with the actual picture rather than alarmist statements. The actual picture includes warming of the Earth. What seldom is presented to the public is the fact that the Earth would be warming at this point (according to ice core data) if humans never existed. The actual picture includes dramatic increases in CO2 in the atmosphere. The actual picture includes an explanation that if the greenhouse effect were the only thing operating, then this dramatic rise in CO2 would have already shot us off the 500,000 year graph in temperature. The actual picture is that we don't have the complete picture.

Now, within the actual picture, there are reasonable things to do. Even though the Earth system isn't as simple as a greenhouse, humans putting all that CO2 in the atmosphere can't be a great thing. We're messing with the system in ways that the system might or might not be able to handle. So let's reduce dramatically the amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere. Scientists can get that message across without making dire predictions that might or might not come true. Whenever one doesn't come true, or is redacted, there is a backlash against the scientists who made the predictions. It seems that fostering mistrust is the last thing you would want to do when trying to convince people of something.

I think scientists could avoid much of the anti-intellectual, anti- science sentiment if they played the game honestly. To go back to my earlier point in posting the quote about preaching, science is not a religion. Why do so many scientists present it as if it is a religion?


Bill




On Dec 21, 2010, at 9:37 AM, John Mallinckrodt wrote:

William Robertson wrote:

... much of the "high entanglement" you refer to is, I believe, mostly due to AGW. Scientists would not be in so deep in this entanglement if they simply presented facts and let up on the propaganda (dire predictions of catastrophe).

This would mean, I assume, going no further than showing people graphs of temperature versus time and possibly CO2 concentrations versus time, but certainly not in close conjunction lest we be accused of propaganda for suggesting a link. Indeed, we should refuse to "speculate" about *any* possible causes and let our perfectly capable and intelligent fellow citizens figure out for themselves whether the trend *might* be related to human population and energy use and, therefore, *might* be accelerating exponentially, and what *might* happen with a several degree rise in average temperature. After all, how many of us don't appreciate a nice warm day? Of course, even the graphs might be a little beyond the pale since they involve making judgments about proxies and all.

In any event am I correct in understanding that you would have us, under *no* circumstances, predict catastrophe?

John Mallinckrodt
Cal Poly Pomona
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l