<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:'bookman old style', 'new york', times, serif;font-size:10pt"><div>Rafal, I wasn't arguing with you about the facts as you suggested they would be; I didn't claim to, and said quite clearly that that wasn't what I was responding to. You might be disappointed, but you shouldn't be surprised.</div><div><br></div><div>Nevertheless, I would expect you to know the following about Bangladesh, in ascending order of importance:</div><div><br></div><div>1. There is some disagreement about whether Bangladesh has being gaining land area or holding steady.</div><div>2. The land area in Bangladesh is extremely dynamic; it is losing land and gaining land at the same time. Some of the lost land was arable, but pretty much none of the new land, which is new delta accumulations, can be used for anything.</div><div>3. It is a glaring fallacy to assume that because
Bangladeshis have not been adversely affected by sea level rise to date (which is quite debatable) that they would therefore not be at risk if the sea level continues to rise into the future. </div><div><br></div><div>That last point is crucial and unassailable. You cannot possibly mean that no change in sea level, no matter how great, would put Bangladeshis at risk, can you? Would one meter per day do it? One meter per year? One meter per decade? Per 50 years? Per century? You may not believe that a sea level rise rapid enough to put them at risk is likely, but to simply state that they are not at risk is careless.</div><div><br></div><div>Regarding sea ice: It is not at all clear that world sea ice cover is more important than Arctic ice. I don't give a damn about the average temperature of the ocean (or anything else). I care about events that indicate an increased potential for disruptive (read: suffering-generating) climate change. I'm sure
you're aware of the significants climatologists place on the more-rapid-than-expected Arctic melt, so I can only assume that you feel that you're right, they're wrong and there's no problem. But it's not like you've uncovered some dark secret that nobody wants to talk about.</div><div><br></div><div>> You mention millions of Bangladeshi climate refugees storming our borders</div><div><br></div><div>I was speaking to a general "you" when I said that; "you" in that case would be India or Burma.</div><div><br></div><div>> you make claims of precipitous ice loss</div><div><br></div><div>There is a precipitous loss of ice in the Arctic, which is what I said.</div><div><br></div><div>> then promptly deny staking any claims on Bangladesh or ice cover</div><div style="font-family:bookman old style, new york, times, serif;font-size:10pt"><br></div><div style="font-family:bookman old style, new york, times,
serif;font-size:10pt">I didn't make the claims you implied I did. I didn't claim that Bangladesh had already been losing land, and I didn't claim that global sea ice cover had been shrinking. Again, please read carefully.</div><div style="font-family:bookman old style, new york, times, serif;font-size:10pt"><br></div><div style="font-family:bookman old style, new york, times, serif;font-size:10pt">> If you don't stake a claim that any particular forecast is correct, </div><div style="font-family:bookman old style, new york, times, serif;font-size:10pt">> if you admit to ignorance of climate science in general, how d</div><div style="font-family:bookman old style, new york, times, serif;font-size:10pt">> you know anything about the future?</div><div style="font-family:bookman old style, new york, times, serif;font-size:10pt"><br></div><div style="font-family:bookman old style, new york, times, serif;font-size:10pt">You gotta
play the odds, baby.</div><div style="font-family:bookman old style, new york, times, serif;font-size:10pt"><br></div><div style="font-family:bookman old style, new york, times, serif;font-size:10pt"><br></div><div style="font-family:bookman old style, new york, times, serif;font-size:10pt"><br><div style="font-family:bookman old style, new york, times, serif;font-size:10pt"><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><hr size="1"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b> Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki@gmail.com><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> ExI chat list <extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Wed, March 3, 2010 9:52:13 PM<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled<br></font><br>
2010/3/3 Christopher Luebcke <<a ymailto="mailto:cluebcke@yahoo.com" href="mailto:cluebcke@yahoo.com">cluebcke@yahoo.com</a>>:<br>> Rafal,<br>> If you would like to argue that Bangledeshis are not at high risk if the sea<br>> level rises significantly, or that it is not the case that Arctic ice cover<br>> is drastically falling, do please be my guest.<br><br>### I note you didn't check the facts, as I suggested you should do.<br>Well, anyway: Bangladesh has not been losing land surface, in fact,<br>according to Dhaka-based Center for Environment and Geographic<br>Information Services (CEGIS), it has been gaining about 20 square<br>kilometers per year, despite continued rise in sea levels (which has<br>been going on since the last ice age but this is another story).<br>Obviously then, Bangladeshis are not at risk, despite statistically<br>significant rises in sea levels. World ice cover, including both the<br>Arctic and the Antarctic, is
of course more relevant to global climate<br>than the Arctic alone, and it has remained essentially unchanged since<br>1995, as may be expected given the lack of statistically significant<br>global warming which was confirmed by e.g. Dr Phil Jones.<br><br>----------------------------<br>> The careful reader will in fact note that at no point, not once, during our<br>> lively exchange, have I staked a claim that any particular forecast for<br>> climate change is correct. I have stated only that I believe that<br>> significant climate change over the next several decades is likely.<br><br>### It's amazing how much you rely on innuendo. You mention millions<br>of Bangladeshi climate refugees storming our borders, you make claims<br>of precipitous ice loss, right before issuing sky-is-falling<br>predictions ("fairly serious climate disruptions"), then promptly deny<br>staking any claims on Bangladesh or ice cover. Yet, still you believe<br>in
"significant climate change" that awaits us - but wait, where is<br>the basis for this prediction? If you don't stake a claim that any<br>particular forecast is correct, if you admit to ignorance of climate<br>science in general, how do you know anything about the future?<br><br>The simple fact is that nobody, even persons very well versed in<br>climate science (much more than I), can make any well-grounded,<br>specific, reliable predictions of climate. Nobody knows enough about<br>the literally hundreds of forcings that shape climate to peer into the<br>future - not even zettaflop computers could do it. Maybe in twenty or<br>thirty years there will be enough understanding of climate to allow<br>predictions but for now it is, as you might say, "productive", to<br>simply admit ignorance and limit predictions to the general statement<br>that historical conditions, both warmer and colder, will continue<br>reoccurring. In other words, business as
usual.<br><br>Rafal<br>_______________________________________________<br>extropy-chat mailing list<br><a ymailto="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br><span><a target="_blank" href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a></span><br></div></div><div style="position:fixed"></div>
</div></body></html>