This is getting pretty far off the wall. By 1990, it was the view of a great many scientists familiar with the evidence then available that it was time for civilization to act to limit emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Canadian scientists such as Dr. Kenneth Hare stated at the 1988 Toronto conference that he believed that 95% of his climate scientist colleagues would support the call for action issued there by Bolin, Houghton, Watson, Schnieder, McElroy, et.al. That call was for a 20% global reduction of CO2 emission by 2005, as an initial step aimed at stabilizing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
In his 1990 article, Seitz appears to describe a similar call, i.e. 30% reduction of CO2 by 2000, which he ascribes to "environmentalists" he doesn't name, as something most scientists of that time would not support. The 1990 Seitz article appears to be a call to do nothing, made because Seitz believed the case for action was not clear enough. It seems to me that a point central to the case Seitz made in his 1990 article was that most scientists of the time would agree with him, i.e. that the evidence was not strong enough. It is that point I am disputing. Perhaps Seitz will clarify things - what was his case in 1990? Was he saying the case for action was not strong enough, therefore civilization should not even attempt to limit the rate of increase of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere? Was he claiming most scientists agreed with his position? Or was he advocating and claiming something else? Seitz seems to think I'm lying and plagiarizing. I was an invited delegate to the Toronto conference and was astonished at the passionate intensity I saw in the scientists I found myself in debate with over the four days it took to prepare the final statement. What was obvious was that many environmentalists discovered that climate was an issue only after hearing from the scientists of that time, eg, when the Greenpeace International delegate spoke in Toronto it seemed clear his organization had not taken climate seriously until he attended that conference and saw for himself how concerned the scientists in attendance were. I was not aware that Romm had written a critique of the 1990 Seitz article. On Thursday, August 8, 2013 1:51:19 PM UTC-7, Russell Seitz wrote: > > The mendacity of Lewis' ellipsis gives lie to his misrepresntation of > what I wrote in 1990. > > "Seitz characterized the 1990 views of two well known by now climate > science deniers, i.e. Roy Spencer and John Christy, as representative of > the 1990 views of most relevant scientists." > > Balderdash- here's the full quote: > >> "*In recent years, three separate and significantly different scientific >> accounts of the same century-long record of "average" global temperatures, >> each peer-reviewed and each with its own set of statistical arguments in >> justification, have been published. They point up, down, and sideways. This >> is not the dismissal of a century of data, but rather a caution-the warming >> trend can only he proved by the data, not by a show of hands. The C02 is >> there, but has the atmosphere begun to notice?* > > *Some say they are 99 percent sure they can perceive it in the data; some >> say those who say that are completely out of scientific bounds. Others say >> they see nothing, and many more that they just can't tell-both nature's >> static-ridden transmission and science's still-crude receivers make the >> message far from plain. "What bothers a lot of us is," one modeler >> remarked, "telling Congress things we are reluctant to say ourselves." (2) >> * > > > >> (2) being the candid words of Alan Robock, in *Science 244 June 2, >> 1989): 1041-43.* > > * > * > The reference to Christy and Spencer is to no less a journal than * > Science* , in whose pages they pontificated over the satellite > temperature record for decades before their methodological errors were > discovered and retracted- > > As to the four cherry cluster of words Lewis has picked from the > following paragraphs, he owes his readers full sentences- when words are > adduced as evidence, nothing is more antithetic to the spirit of science > than ellipsis at the clear expense of meaning, and i invite his readers to > contrast and compare his fragment:* "most scientists lack conviction "*with > what > I wrote in full. > > Almost everything about this statement sits oddly with representations of > the greenhouse effect in the popular media. Where *Science* speaks of > conflicting studies and ambiguous results, the popularizers of the > greenhouse effect deliver dire warnings with the utmost certitude. Where > the one counsels a cautious political response, the other urges instant, > even draconian intervention. In the name of the greenhouse effect, some > environmentalists are demanding a 30 percent rollback in C02 emissions by > the year 2000. They seem oblivious to the enormity of what they are > demanding: a war on that most elemental of human discoveries-fire itself. > > Why this enormous gap between what is known and what is urged? Why do most > scientists lack conviction, where many laymen are full of passionate > intensity? To answer, we might begin by way of reviewing a most important > aspect of the greenhouse effect-the extent of our ignorance. > > Last but not least, if he wants to go on paraphrasing the critique of A > War Against Fire offered by Climate progress he owes Joe Romm a citation. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
