[ RadSafe ] extremism
sjd at swcp.com
Wed Mar 21 21:48:58 CDT 2007
Ruth Sponsler wrote:
"This list has become host to extremist 'all-or-nothing' viewpoints that
paint climate scientists as environmental extremists."
Also (referring to Duke Energy and two other parties):
"But here on the list, these utility CEOs and leaders are seen as just a
bunch of people 'duped' into believing in a 'hoax' perpetrated by
'left-wing' climatologists like MIT hurricane scientist Dr. Kerry
Emanuel: http://bostonreview.net/BR32.1/emanuel.html Dr. Emanuel
criticizes the 'Green' extremists for their anti-nuclear views.
"It seems there is no room on this list for a centrist, independent
viewpoint between the extremes of the anti-technology, anti-everything
viewpoint of Greenpeace (on the Left) and the 'let's
release_unlimited_CO2_' viewpoint of Sen. James Inhofe (on the Right). A
political climate is dangerous when it allows no room between
extremes." (Did Sen. Inhofe actually say this, or is this the hyperbole of
one of his detractors?)
In another posting, Ruth wrote:
"As I've said before, it's important to be careful about extremes. The
climate situation has certainly brought out the extremes both on the Left
and the Right."
I think I have read all the messages in these global warming
threads and I don't see anyone painting climate scientists as
extremists. Regardless of who has said what about whom, since
you Ruth think RADSAFE has become host to a bunch of 'extremist
viewpoints,' what do you think is a non-extremist viewpoint? Or, to use
your expression, what is a "centrist, independent viewpoint"? And
what? Industrialists? Greens? Democrats? Republicans? Orthodox
science? Un-orthodox science? Independent of data? "Independent" of
what? Please justify your position from both the scientific and
As far as labeling people is concerned, I don't recall hearing
that anyone had been 'duped' into anything, nor do I recall anyone being
called a 'left-wing' climatologist. I can recall Dr. Kerry Emanuel calling
Sen. Inhofe a scientific illiterate, though. Isn't waving around the
labels right and left wing a waste of time anyway? It proves nothing and
accomplishes nothing (unless someone thinks being divisive is salutary, and
I certainly hope no one here thinks divisiveness is salutary).
Instead of trying to decide who is on what wing, let's talk about
the science, and about what is known to be true.
This link <
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html> was posted
yesterday. According to the material on this page (or links within it),
the role of water vapor has been utterly ignored by global warming
proponents (GWPs). This is despite the fact that water vapor accounts for
some 95% of greenhouse gases, and that only about one percent of water
vapor is anthropogenic.
At the same time, GWPs are moaning and groaning about
CO2. According to the above link, 186 billion tons of CO2 are produced
every year. Six billion of these tons are man-made a mere three
percent. The other 97% comes from natural biological processes in the
ocean, and from decaying plant matter. As can plainly be seen, the human
contribution to greenhouse gases is insignificant.
In light of all this, would it be correct to say that blaming
global warming on man-made greenhouse gases is an "extremist"
position? What do you think? Ruth? Anyone?
As far as being "careful about extremes" is concerned, what is
this supposed to mean? As a hypothetical proposal, let's assume it is
eventually and conclusively shown that humans can do nothing either way to
influence global warming. Would that be an extreme position, and if so,
how would we go about being careful about it?
sjd at swcp.com
More information about the RadSafe