[Sosfbay-discuss] Brokaw's Global Warming is Replaying tonight onDiscovery Channel-8 PM (EOM)

[Gerry Gras]

Wes Rolley wrote:

<clip>


> At one level, maybe it is.  However, to get people to buy in to the 
> possibility that maybe it is true, we start with small steps.  Then, 
> once they have admitted that there are really things thay can do, the 
> next step follows, like voting out the nay-sayers.
> 
> I talked to a neighbor last night, joking about global warming being the 
> cause of yesterday's 114 heat, and they referenced their source for 
> doubt... Michael Savage, who "did his own research on the subject."  
> Needless to say, my neighbor is a Republican.
> 
> Wes
> 
> 

I spent some time researching this on the internet.  I guess
I could write a long email now, but won't.  If you have
questions, just ask.

A few points however.

- Michael Savage apparently does not like Democrats AND Republicans,
   referring to them as Democans and Republicrats.

- There is a debate going on in the U.S. House now about global
   warming.  Including a criticism of one chairman by another,
   (remember, all chairs belong to the majority party in the
   House, which means both are Republican.

- I saw an article on Common Dreams awhile ago saying that the
   majority of Americans are concerned about the environment and
   are ready for the government to do something.  (How concerned
   Americans are about global warming, however, is not clear to me.)

- A simplistic outline of my opinion of what the global warming
   debate is about:
   - the climate scientists say that no peer reviewed articles
     disagree that global warming is real and man made.  (There
     probably is a clarification that they are referring to
     certain science publications.)
   - the opposition says
     - there are articles published
     - they have submitted articles to be published in the
       scientific community, but they have been rejected by
       biased editors
     - the articles have pointed out alleged flaws in the current
       thinking of the climate science community
     - we should not act hastily in reaction to an issue where we
       have incomplete information, maybe more information will
       indicate a quite different story
   - the climate scientists say that the opposition articles are
     not published because the issues raised in them have all
     been refuted already publically

- I think it is not easy for a non expert to decide which side
   to believe in.  There are a number of scientists among the
   skeptics.   Everyone in the debate is human, and therefore
   can make mistakes.  And no matter how much you know there
   is always the possibility that future knowledge may
   invalidate current thinking.  In answer to that I think it
   is prudent to
   - check the credentials of the various proponents...
     for example, one skeptical study was done by an economist
     and a person with a math degree who has had a career in
     mineral extraction (which can by a plus or minus depending
     on who is reading the study)
     NOTE: it is my impression that in general the biologists
     worry a lot about the environment, the economists do not.
     NOTE: age matters, it seems that the older you are the
     harder it is to accept new information, especially if it
     is unpleasant.
   - just because we do not have complete information is no
     reason to do nothing ... we often make decisions based
     on incomplete information, including buying a house,
     getting rid of an old car, voting for a politician

...

Finally, I recently heard a quote about thinking and
rearranging prejudices.  I found this:

"A great many people think they are thinking when they are
merely rearranging their prejudices."  (William James?)
     http://www.bartleby.com/73/1266.html

Gerry