Re: [Phys-l] Is evolution something to believe in?

["Alfredo Louro" <louro.alfredo@gmail.com>]

Rick's point is that something that appears in his mailbox that
contradicts scientific findings is to be believed without question,
and that any reaction from the professional research community is to
be interpreted as a personal attack . He imagines himself standing up
for the little guy who rebels against the establishment.

Me, I wonder why the little guy publishes what is ostensibly a paper
on climate science in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.
And I become very suspicious when the little guy tries to foist a
petition on me that says:

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming
agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997, and any
other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would
harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology,
and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing
scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or
other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future,
cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of
the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific
evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many
beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of
the Earth."

I would love to see a reference to that scientific evidence that
increases in CO2 produce many beneficial effects.

And I become even more suspicious when I read the background of the
people who wrote the petition, which you can read here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2 ,
and I see a group funded by Exxon.

I'm old fashioned. I tend to trust the geophysical journals, like JGR
and GRL, and the IPCC compilations of data and calculations. And when
the American Geophysical Union publishes a declaration on climate
change ( http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml
) that says in part:

"With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on
Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike
ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern
society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society.
Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for
collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government.
Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively
have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand
it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to
communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement
policies to shape future climate."

I give them a lot more credit than I do to unsolicited email.

The best antidote to propaganda is ultimately to read and understand
the peer-reviewed literature. For people with physics degrees this is
perfectly possible, and if one is to actually emit an opinion, it's an
obligation.

Alfredo

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 5:48 AM, LaMontagne, Bob <RLAMONT@providence.edu> wrote:
> Thanks for so nicely making Rick's point!
>
>  Bob at PC
>
>  ________________________________
>
>  From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu on behalf of Alfredo Louro
>  Sent: Thu 4/3/2008 1:17 PM
>  To: Forum for Physics Educators
>  Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Is evolution something to believe in?
>
>
>
>  On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Rick Tarara <rtarara@saintmarys.edu> wrote:
>  > When
>  >  scientists question human induced global warming, the first (knee-jerk)
>  >  response from the 'mainstream' community is to attack the credentials and/or
>  >  the motivations of the critics.  A good example is the mailing most of us
>  >  got a few months back.  I searched online to find refutations for the
>  >  evidence presented in that paper (Environmental Effects of Increased
>  >  Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, Arthur B. Robinson et.al.) , and instead found,
>  >  over and over again, attacks on the authors' credentials.  There are some
>  >  data presented showing that trends now cited as proof of (human induced)
>  >  warming, started well before any significant human contribution to
>  >  greenhouse gasses.  While there may be something posted that deals with
>  >  this, I can't find it amidst all the character assassinations!   ;-(
>  >
>
>  This "paper" was not peer-reviewed (it was published in the Journal of
>  American Physicians and Surgeons). You can read a review by climate
>  scientists here;
>  http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/oregon-institute-of-science-and-malarkey/#more-480
>  . As you mentioned, it was mailed out to a bunch of people to promote
>  the infamous "Oregon petition", which you may recall was maliciously
>  set up to resemble a contribution to the NAS. If you're interested in
>  refutations of the data in that "paper", here's a source:
>  http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=OISM .
>
>  And of course, there is more than abundant scientific literature
>  showing that anthropogenic global warming, unfortunately, is real
>  enough.
>  _______________________________________________
>  Forum for Physics Educators
>  Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
>  https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>  Forum for Physics Educators
>  Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
>  https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l