Re: [Phys-L] Garth Paltridge: Climate Change's Inherent Uncertainties

["John Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>]

This is pure conspiracy "theory" (see below), and NOT scientific evidence.
This is the type or argument that people use when their paradigms are
challenged.  Paltridge does NOT question the existence of anthropogenic
global warming.  His main thrust is that it will not be as bad as most of
the forcasts.  The current indications are that both Greenland and
Antarctica are melting, so sea level rise will continue at least at the
current rate.  There is a stick the head in the sand mentality on the part
of the conservative politicians with regard to this fact.  I would point to
laws that forbid mentioning sea level rise.  Pointing out uncertainty should
acknowledge that while the mild consequences are possible, but it is also
possible to have consequences far beyond the worst projections.

The climatologists have acknowledged that there are a variety of forecasts
of possible outcomes.  So what we do in light of the possible outcomes is a
social and political problem.  The milder outcomes may not need immediate
attention, but the severe outcomes need attention now.  It is like advising
people whether they should evacuate before a possibly severe hurricane hits.
Should you be on the safe side and order evacuation, or just issue an
advisory.  Which is the best course????  I have been through several types
of hurricanes and seen both ill advised evacuation fever, and well advised
evacutation warnings, so this is a difficult call.  But at least peope don't
claim that no hurricane is possible, while they will claim that severe
global warming is not possible.  The reason for this was proposed by Lawson
who found that things that you can't see are difficult to understand below
the theoretical level of thinking.  Geological processes can be understood
by people at the lower formal operational processes because they "could" be
shown by time lapse photos.  Global warming because of its ultimate possible
conseqeunces far in the future makes it a very difficult concept for most
people below the formal operationa level.  Hurricanes can not we easily seen
on TV so people pay attention to them.  Incidentally evolution is a concept
that is mainly accessible to people at the highest level, and global warming
rejection correlates with evolution rejection.  For evidence look at the PEW
forum studies.

If Paltridge is dead wrong, we may find that the climate change will end up
with a diminished world food supply, more sever famines, more wars... and
the abandonment of all current coastal cities along with most of Florida.
If he is right, we have little to fear immediately.  Is the currently
unprecedented drought more likely with global warming?  We don't really know
yet.  We do know that there has been substantial warming up to this point, a
fact that can not be denied any longer.

The history of civilization collapse has many examples of people going
beyond the ability of the environment to support the growing population.  In
addition there are examples of how local practices ruined the local ecology
to cause collapse.  We are not in the position of being able to change the
whole Earth climate, so being completely sanquine about our actions is a
very bad idea.  Sure, in the past various local and global climate changes
contributed to social collapse, but this does not change the situation that
we are raising the CO2 level substantially with unknown confirmed
consequences.  So are some firm actions needed?  The problem here is that it
might require strong governmental action because the profit motive is
driving the current consumption of cheap fuel that was laid down over
millions of years.  The paradigm that weak government and laissez faire
capitalism works best is making people deny evidence.  Eventually we will
have to switch to reknewable energy souces when the current sources are
gone, but that may take too long.

What I find strange is that the same people who have weak government
paradigms pass laws such as forbidding the mentioning of sea level rise, or
place restrictions on individuals.  They adore Adam Smith, but neglect the
statements he made that the marketplace does not always produce the best
possible social outcomes, and may need restrictions.  With the demise of
communism nobody buys into the idea of government control of all phases of
society, but the opposite of communism is anarchy.  Social institutions have
been created to meet the needs of the people and they are all imperfect.
Neither side of society has "the truth".  As Bronowski pointed out,
believing you have "the truth" leads to dire consequences such as the
holocaust.  Complete denial of the possibility of dire global warming is an
example of believing you have "the truth".

I would hope that Paltridge is right because it now seems impossible to
prevent substantial increses in CO2.  I fear that he is dead wrong, which
will be a disaster for future generations.  Beware of your paradigms because
they can cloud your reasoning and make you look for the evidence you believe
while ignoring other evidence. 

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

> The trap was set in the late 1970s or thereabouts when the 
> environmental 
> movement first realised that doing something about global 
> warming would 
> play to quite a number of its social agendas. ...
>
> The scientists in environmental research laboratories ... 
> were forced to 
> seek funds from other government departments. In turn this 
> forced them 
> to accept the need for advocacy and for the manipulation of public 
> opinion. ...
>
> The trap was partially sprung in climate research when a 
> number of the 
> relevant scientists began to enjoy the advocacy business. The 
> enjoyment 
> was based on a considerable increase in funding and employment 
> opportunity. ...
>
> The trap was fully sprung when many of the world's major national 
> academies of science ... persuaded themselves to issue reports giving 
> support to the conclusions of the IPCC. The reports were touted as 
> national assessments that were supposedly independent of the 
> IPCC and of 
> each other, but of necessity were compiled with the 
> assistance of, and 
> in some cases at the behest of, many of the scientists 
> involved in the 
> IPCC international machinations. ...