[ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled

[Christopher Luebcke]

Spike, I disagree with some of what you wrote, but not all of it. From what I understand it's potentially a lot worse that you think it might be--"we" will probably do just fine from an evolutionary standpoint, but destabilization of ecosystems can cause a tremendous amount of suffering for a lot of people.

Regardless, I appreciate your point, and I agree that cheap energy should be a top priority (because among other things, if we get close to some of the worst-case scenarios, we're going to need all the cheap, distributed energy we can get).

My entire argument with Rafal actually has nothing whatsoever to do with the reliability, potential consequences or overall significance of warming predictions. It is entirely to do with the accusation of fraud he has made, and my deep concern that this type of discourse--the offhand demonization of one's opponents, no longer restricted to politicians and election cycles, but now to scientists, business leaders, non-profit organizations and everyday citizens--is frighteningly corrosive to the prospect of our civilization being able to survive intact, much less thrive.

Fundamentally, an accusation of scientific fraud ought to be at least as thoroughly reviewed as the original science before being accepted. Any lower standard is an insult to the scientific method.




________________________________
From: spike <spike66 at att.net>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Mon, March 1, 2010 11:24:55 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled

>...On Behalf Of Christopher Luebcke
    Subject: Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science
isn'tsettled
    
    >...The problem has never been that people cannot adapt. It's that
ecosystems can adapt in ways that are extremely unfriendly to people. No
matter how well-deserved your estimation of your own genes is, your kids are
not going to grow gills or derive nutrition from sand. Catastrophic global
warming won't kill by heat stroke. It'll kill by war, disease and famine...


So I hear.  Consider the kinds of oversimplification that leads to
misunderstanding.  One I pointed out, where the proletariat somehow turns a
degree per century into a degree per year.  Then there is the annoying habit
of lumping all varieties of skeptics into one large bin of enviro-heretics,
even though there are many subtle varieties.  I for instance recognize that
the surface temperature may rise a bit on average, but I seriously doubt
that warming by itself will cause war, disease, famine etc.  We have
*plenty* of factors that can cause all that stuff without a couple degrees
of warming.  For instance, we have war, disease and famine as a result of
human disagreement on the name of their imaginary deities.  Humans just have
a bad habit of killing each other.

Considering modern war technology, agricultural technology, pest control,
water handling, construction skills, I honestly think we would scarcely
notice a degree or two of warming over a human lifetime.  We can handle it,
farm animals can handle it, crops can be genetically engineered for a bit
warmer and longer growing season.  Some beasts will go extinct as beasts do,
but some would anyway even without the warming.  Chris we have bigger
problems to worry about, such as maintaining the supply of cheap energy.

spike




_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100302/c77e55d4/attachment.html>