Ron-The-Elder wrote:Hi, Kim. Nice to read your posts again. Thank you for the sincere responses.
My comment regarding Aussie Climatologists was meant to be humorous, but as you said, I failed to "know my audience". Please forgive.
Thank you for the offer to discuss this issue in earnest, but I am afraid that we would be preaching to the choir. As you apparently forgot from our interactions in other forums over the years I worked in the field of environmental safety and health for over thirty-five years. My ineffectual glibness was directed at those stating the obvious.
Thanks for that. I do remember you from various other conversations but would be lying if I said I remembered exactly where you stood on climate science, and when you opened with such an, ah, poorly chosen selection of sources I responded accordingly. Thanks for not taking umbrage!
Ron-The-Elder wrote: However, I do not hold Climatologists as the world's experts as you do. I look to physics, chemistry, and biology as well for confirmation as to the health of our world's climate. I do not consider Global Warming a done deal as do you, nor do I dismiss professionals from the engineering, and energy production community as liars and self-serving cheats. I believe they as occupants of this planet have as much to lose as do you and I.
Two points I'd like to make here:
1. Climatologists are the specialists in climate (doh!) and they should be our primary source. We may go to a GP for a check-up but we will go to a skin specialist if he finds a suspicious lump on our arm, and then to a cancer specialist if that turns out to be necessary, won't we? Going to a geologist or a physicist or chemist for climate science is like going to an osteopath or immunologist or biochemist instead of that cancer specialist.
2. Individual engineers and others in the fossil fuel industries do have as much to lose as we do but their companies have no soul, no morals, no conscience and a hell of a lot of leverage so we can't trust anything that comes from the industry, first hand or second hand. They will only tell the truth if it happens to coincide with maximising their profits. This may seem exaggerated or
-theoretical but do - let's make that stronger - DO
read the links I provided earlier.
I would like to take you up on the offer for a beneficial, expert, and honest discussion of the topic in so far as we are able. Perhaps we can begin with a list of resources that both you and I consider to be worthy, honest, and credentialed. As I said previously,
I like NASA: http://climate.nasa.gov/
and consider them unbiased.
I also respect NOAA: http://www.weather.gov/
Both excellent. You can add parallel organisations in other countries - CSIRO here, Met Office and Hadley Centre in the UK, etc.
Absolutely reliable but a bit cautious and conservative because of the rules under which it operates. Nothing
contentious gets through. That means that if they say "at least" 2C temp rise, you can bet your house on at least a 2C rise. However, upper limits are often understated, so when they say "2 - 5C", it's quite likely that the outcome will be 5C and possible that it will be 7C.
New to me but looks good.
What are your suggestions / candidates for reliable sources?
You've mentioned the scientific bodies. Next come the specialist blogs, with RealClimate http://www.realclimate.org/
at the top of my list. It can get a bit technical but the people behind it are at the top of the field and they always provide references to sources.
On the policy side I like Climate Progress http://thinkprogress.org/climate/issue/
Leaders of the smite-the-ungodly pack are DeSmogBlog http://www.desmogblog.com/
and Skeptical Science http://www.skepticalscience.com/
There are more, but I would encourage a good solid browse on these few, following links they recommend. That way you will find places catering to your own interests.
And remember, the science is settled, although there is always more to learn. It's as well established as evolution plate tectonics, the connection between smoking and cancer, and the perils of DDT. We need to move on from dealing with the misinformers who say otherwise, so that we can get on to doing something about mitigation.