Jack E.,
I apologize for using "bandwadon".

I see the current dicussion to be about the politics of "global warming" and "greenhouse gases" so I simply attached an old political term referring to people alligned on one side of an issue or candidate. If I have misinterpreted your side of the issue that is because of a personal lack of political accuity.

I am still curious if you feel those companies that support the view that global warming is caused by man through the emissions of CO2 have a similar advantage to the Corporate deniers? "Corporate deniers use the media to their advantage because they have the lobby funds to pay for it."

Chuck L.,
"WHUT?!?"
If one truly believes in something you will become engaged in the issue and sacrifice to learn how to be a most effective particpant.

If people are truly intelligent then they can learn new skills to persue what they find important.

If "scieintists" strongly believe then they will learn the skills to become a vocal participant in the public discussion.

Chris W.,
A point of information DDT was a poltical issue not a scieince one. It was the abusive use of DDT that did the damage. It DDT would have been allowed to be used properly it could have prevented millions of lives lost to malaria ove the past few decades.

As for the sulfur dioxide, I believe that has proven to be an effective nucleating agent for cloud development. Clouds from all I have heard are an effective means for reducing solar energy from striking the earth and even a means of providing moisture for things to grow.

David K.,
“Hogwash. The emails show no such thing. It does, however, show how denialists have a habit of cherry picking,” cherry picking suggests there was something to pick, there was an agenda about how to dissuade others from getting opposing views aired.
“Huh?” It seems that Sandra said “Take science out of the political arena and politics out of the scientific arena.” I was simply saying I felt the opposite.
“Umm, no, it is a phrase that describes one component of climate change caused by humans.” Is the earth really warming, is the earth’s core warming or is it the surface and more specifically the surface fluids that are warming? How deep into the earth’s crust is it warming? “global warming” is a simply catch phase or political jinglism, no different than a political campaign phase used in a presidential campaign.
“It doesn't matter what you "prefer."” It was simply a lighthearted way of saying with all the focus on “global warming” that if everything being suggested did turn things into “global cooling” (if temperatures start to fall then that would suggest cooling). From what I have been taught it is more difficult for species to survive the cold than the warm so warming is more appealling. If I am wrong please explain my errors. I figure I am allowed some levity not being a “scientist”, if wrong please say so and I will stop with the attempts.
“I prefer "denialist" because it acknowledges that there is a "denier" industry out there whose goal is to spread disinformation so that no policy action is taken that might hurt the interests of their industrial membership.” I said nothing about whether they were accurate or not, I simply said they were terms used for politics. That you felt it necessary to define one suggests it is a new term in the political arena and needs more press. Could you provide as succinct a definition for “scientist” as I continue to struggle in these conversations to understand who we should be listening to and who we shouldn’t, whether it is based on their academic training, their research work, or their side of a political issue? “You don't think credibility is important?”I think credibility is important, I am interested in criteria that I/others can use for evaluating sources of information rather than simply being expected to take the pronouncements of people using it to buttress their position on an issue.
“All of that is pretty much wasted on a bunch of people who can't even get the basic facts straight, never mind all of the detail that would go into a scientific paper.” Does that mean that we (on Gather) don’t have the ability to grasp the ideas/principles that their findings are based on or that it is more convenient to vent over erroneous facts rather than provide specific facts and sources? I personally believe that the people on Gather are both smart enough to understand science and the facts and even to draw their own conclusions.
“So when we say the "science says" it is in reference to the overwhelming conclusions reached from the sum total of all of that science.” When you say that “science says” it is the “greenhouse gases” that are causing “global warming” it isn’t that a particular paper lays out all of the finding in a scientific manner, similar to how a research would have to do, or is it a group such as the IPCC has to do is say we have read all the reports and we say what they mean?
“Which is why science is done by scientists who have studied the science and not by people on social networking sites that don't understand basic principles.” That seems to suggest that you don’t feel that people who participate on Gather are not too smart. If a person goes to Wikipedia they can quickly gain an understanding, I believe that the overwhelming majority if not all on Gather have the ability to understand, so that returns it to the politics of the issue and how “greenhouse effect” is simply a nice image creating catch phrase that does not properly reflect the science.
“I have no idea what you mean by this.” When it is about decisions that will affect how I live or choose to live I want an open and public discussion of the actions to be taken. As an example it maybe more cost effective to use the Netherlands model for addressing rising sea levels than turning to the trading floor of some financial exchange for deciding the right to expel CO2. If you are so concerned about the ability of “scientists” to learn to communicate to the general public then why shouldn’t I be equally concern about the same “scientists” ability to fully appreciate the consequences of actions to return us to previous levels of CO2 in the atmosphere?

David K.,
"Communicating to scientists is completely different than communicating to the general public." If that is the case I must admit that you have put my confidence in the highly intelligent and their ability change and adjust to new facts and information into jeopardy. I had always thought that people who were exceptionally intelligent where driven by desire and not limited by ability. You now tell me they all have the desire, but simply because they have been taught to be precise in their communications they can not adjust and learn something new. You suggest that once they have lerned to talk to "scieintists" there is no way back and aside from the rare exception they will never be able to talk effectively with the general public, they will alwyaas need Al Gore or some other spokesman to explain to us what they mean.

"Lots of people believe strongly in what they want to communicate ", I offer an example of what I mean by believe strongly enough. Over 230 years ago a bunch of men believed so strongly in liberty that they went to the fields of battle with what they had in their hands, they were out number and ill equipped but they went for to do battle. Galillao was willing to do battle with the church of his day on his science and he was surely ill equipped.
If the "sceintists" of today so strongly believe then they would go do battle and hone their communication skills just as our men have done in Iraq for what they strongly believe in.

You must feel

David K.,
I surely could have misunderstood. I thought Chris B. was suggesting that they there is a battle going on for the public opinion on today's science. I was simply saying that I have been taught that scieince has always been in a battle for public opinion.

Whether it is the battlefields of Iraq or the battlefield of "greenhouse gases" those that do battle make the choice and use the tools at hand.

When the battle includes public opinion then one of tools is communications.

As for the article I thought you are encouraging "scientists" to both better develop their commiunication skills and to become more visible on your side of the battle for public opinion. Thouhg you may have been making an appeal to readers to have less expectations of what and how "sceintists" say simply because they are "scieintists" and are really skilled or may not be able to communicated to us mere mortals (they are on a different plane from the "scieintific illiterates").

Being one of the public who needs clear and conscise communication, what should have I have gained from your article and the comments?

Steve B.,
First every job can be out sourced. The issue their does out sourcing provide sufficient value to justify it.

As for changing demands will drive jobs. A simple example could be if the ocena levels rise then there will be jobs in turning coastal towns to look like the Neatherlands shoreline communities.

We will go ahead with alternative energy sources if for no other reewason than the cost of fossil fuels will rise and make the laternatives fiancially viable.

I am curious about how you determine of a solution is credible. What criteria do you use? Do you use a minimum or maximum time of impact on temperature rise or better yet falling? Do you use a dollar cost (gross or by individual project)? Do you have a specific criteria or base line of public health (something along the lines of hhow many skin cancer deaths they were projecting when the ozone hole was a big environmental issue)? DO you have specific criteria for any of the factors that you use to determine what is credible?

Jack E.,
As best I can tell Siemens, GE, even BP, and others are opening talking about gloabl climate change and their efforts to mitigate in their on TV ads. And reading other public releases from even some of the big chemical manufacturers and users there sure seems to be (if not open support) at least public acceptance of the climate change and very public efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

You may not feel their PR efforts are sufficient to say they are on your bandwagon, but it seems they are investing significantly both in dollars and public reputation on the concept that "global warming" is real and that "greenhouse gases" are a contributing factor.

Sandra L.,
As much as that sounds appealling and desirable, as long as there are people involved there will be politiics. The whole Email blowup over in England may have shown nothing accept that even the "scientists" are political in their own sphere of influence. It is the nature of people that have a point of view.
It isn't the politics that are so bad it is the methods used and the unwillingness of the "true believers" [on either side of an issue] to recongize the politics and the methods being employed.

The phase "global warming" is a political tool. The bisosphere has been cooling an warming since it inception. There have been many cycles with external and internal influences. I have to say I prefer warming over cooling (tougher to grow crops in ice). The terms "deniers" and "greenies" are poltical tools use to catagorize the source of information rather then address the issues or information they offer. Similarly many times I hear "scientist" thrown out in an attempt to discredit commentor or to support a position. From the limited contact I have had with scientist they will normally reference a particular indicidual or work they have done rather then say that is "scientists" that say something is true. They also have talked about the methodology and the principles addressing questions with specific applications.

The "greenhouse" house effect creates a nice mental image but it has three elements of impact, radiation, convection, and conduction. The "green house gases). as far as has been describe to me, only impacts radiation.

I want the politics kept in the discussion when "science" is the justification for action that affect all or even part of society. fo r me this is true of meidcal science, physical, chemical, biological, and whatever other one people want to invoke.

We don;t need dead writers, we need people that believe strongly enough to stand up and speak what they know and keep trying until they develop the skills for communications as they developed their skills in science.

If you are so interested in a skilled writer that understands scinece then I would encourage yuo to recruit Dorion Sagan the lament the loss fo Carl Sagan.

I must have led a sheltered life, for everything I have been taught about history from Galileo through Einstien even to today's "scieintists" has been a battle, that all of those who were offering a new view of the world thropugh science has been willing to do battle over what they believed.

If "scentists" aren't speakiking up it isn;t because they haven;t been taught or had a model to follow, it is that they don;t want to for whatever reason.

R.F.,
There maybe an altrenative way to look at climate change.
It seems, pleas correct me if I am wrong, that climate change is something that should be battles and returned to what it was in the past. The question I have is how far back in the past do you want it to return to?

The alternative might be to accept that climate changes, that is has been changing and to be a viable system it must beable to change. Rather than battle the change, and one of the strengths of man, is to adapt to the change.

"We grew and became the great country we became because we took advantage of every opportunity for innovation and, when no opportunity seemed to be available, we made opportunities." Maybe we shold take this to heart and look at climate change as opportunities for our change for a new future and not spending all our creativity to return to the past.

Jack E.,
"Corporate deniers use the media to their advantage because they have the lobby funds to pay for it." There is a number of large corporation that are believeers in the "global warming" and "greenhouse gas" and they take to the airwaves regularly. Do you feel they way they spend their lobbying funds is inappropriate?

David K.,
I am sorry you can;t be with family and enjoy holiday even more with their exceitement.

I wish you the joy of family and friends throughout the year and espcially that you can be with family at all the holdiays in 2010.

A happy Christmas season.