I have to say that I very much appreciate Gavin's balanced and reasoned 
response, that is so typical of the careful, measured and honest approach 
that all the professional scientists I know bring to a discussion.  I have 
to say that I  understand his points and agree in many ways with pretty much 
all he says, I also but look at the same things from many different angles 
and when we turn something around, it can look very different from the other 
side.

> Science is a process, and that process leads to (sometimes erratically) 
> ever more correct views of the world.

I agree, but have to ask, how did we manage the 99.99999% of our evolution 
before science was invented?  Must we discard the tools that brought us, 
apparently from molecules to amoeba to vertebrate to rational thought and 
science, or should we use them to augment that process?

> Something as straightforward as effects of a pesticide are truly 
> straightforward to study.

Let us distinguish between the hard science that put man on the moon and the 
science that produces drugs and poisons, and also attempts to understand 
their effects in a complex and unpredictable (unknowable) chemical world.

All science is not the same.  Although the boundary between physics and 
chemistry is increasingly hard to define, on a macro level, physics is, IMO, 
far more cut and dried, with fewer possibilities for significant subtle 
confounding effects.  Some will argue I am sure, but then again there is a a 
further lessening in certainty as we get into the biological sciences and 
beyond into the more malleable regions like psychology.

> Worried about sub-lethal effects?  Sure, with enough of an incentive and 
> with near infinite funding, studies can be designed that satisfy all 
> reasonable people.  The unreasonable people just have to be left behind. 
> Of course, funding is never infinite and realistic proxies have to be 
> found for real life.

There is the problem, as is, oftentimes, the source and management of the 
available funding.

> Where science really gets into difficulties is when it starts to address 
> issues that are dear to the hearts of people.

Science, economics, politics, you name it.  People have their beliefs, but 
don't confuse educated skepticism with inertia and ignorance.

> Here, the hunches Allen mentioned earlier are not helpful and valuable, 
> they are blinkers that stop the improvement and spread of knowledge in its 
> tracks.

Here is where we disagree.  I concede that this may be true sometimes, but 
that just as often, hunches, and even inertia can be constructive and can 
save us from precipitous action with unforeseen consequences.  Often, 
advancing with incomplete intelligence can be more dangerous that staying 
put.

> If science demands a paradigm shift - that sea-change in thinking - and 
> the implications of such a change are too difficult for some sections of 
> the public to bear - then we have stalemate.  A blunt refusal to 'think 
> the unthinkable'.  Very very rarely the unthinkable is a message that we 
> all need to heed.  If those unable to think the unthinkable have it wrong, 
> we don't have enough time for those with closed minds to be replaced by an 
> entire generation that never put those blinkers on.

Very well stated.  The problem is knowing which of the 'unthinkables' is 
folly and which is not.  We have some great examples at hand where we see 
that the safeguards that wer5e put in place after the last depression were 
removed by the best and the brightest of a new generation on the assumption 
that their 'science' and technology had changed the world.  Apparently, it 
had not, fundamentally, at least.

Separating true science from mass delusion and manipulation can be 
difficult.

> I don't believe that Al Gore ever 'proved' that CO2 precedes and causes 
> global temperature rise.  He pointed out that we are now well outside the 
> envelopes of CO2 fluctuations over recent glacial and inter-glacial 
> periods.  He described the implications of this, and indicated the likely 
> implications of what is happening to the atmosphere now.  Jumping back to 
> the time before photosynthetic organisms changed the climate of the planet 
> it is very clear that high CO2 is linked to high global temperatures and 
> that green (and blue-green, and red and brown) life on the planet changed 
> global climate forever.  Well, hopefully forever.

I'd have to watch the movie again, but that is not what I recall.  At any 
rate.  Moreover, when I look at the chart, which can be had at 
http://www.honeybeeworld.com/climatechart.pdf, I don't see what you see. 
Maybe it is the angle, but I tend to see the chart itself as a rather 
imaginative construction, mind you it may be the best we can make.  The 
question is whether it is good enough to prove anything much.  A lot of 
people seem to think so, but I have to doubt it for too many reasons.

> You can't pick and choose your science.  It is either crackpot science and 
> needs to be rejected, or it is part of the big picture.  If it is part of 
> the big picture, and in this case the great majority of the world's 
> climatologists say it is, then you have to wake up and listen, even if you 
> don't personally take to the politician bringing it to you.

You use the word, "if".  My impression is that this may not be the case, but 
that consensus is merely an artifact of the way the question was posed to 
them.  Granted, there are some vociferous advocates, but my understanding is 
that many admit a possibility, but are on the fence.  I also say, "Follow 
the money".  This is getting to be the biggest boondoggle of all time, with 
outfits like Goldman Sacks pushing it.  These are the same folks who brought 
the meltdown to your neighbourhood, while profiting all the way.

> *Proof* of cause and effect - like the tobacco companies said for many 
> decades?

I'm not sure whether that applies more to the AGW advocates or the 
detractors.

>  Unfortunately reason also suggests that the scientists are right when 
> they cite the extra Watts per sq metre trapped for every additional ppm of 
> CO2, NO2 and CH3.

Interesting that we now add several other chemicals to the issue.  Could it 
be because C02 is one of the weakest influences?  And why are we excluding 
water vapour from the discussion, water being one of the strongest 
'greenhouse' influences, (and totally beyond our control).  Why do we not 
examine the natural sources of these and also consider that the we are in a 
very complex and self-buffering system which naturally ranges in temperature 
and chemical composition or that external influences, like the sun and our 
position in various orbits has been demonstrated to have a large effect on 
our climate?  Or that the output of a single volcanic event can dwarf our 
puny production of gasses.

> And, unfortunately, yes, people are liable to believe just what they want 
> to believe.  That is why, in beekeeping as in life in general, it is 
> absolutely essential that as many people as possible keep open minds and 
> are willing to join in with those sea-changes when the evidence warrants 
> it.

And why we will always have doubters and debates on things that seem so 
obvious to some, at least until they dig beneath the propaganda.

IMO, AGW is merely a stalking horse for a number of more serious and 
unapproachable problems, and a surrogate that can be accepted by 
populations, since it is oversimplified and apocalyptic enough to catch the 
popular imagination.

It seems clear that we cannot maintain our current growth in consumption for 
much longer, and whether our planet can even sustain our current load is 
questionable in the minds of thinking people.

If AGW is the best cover story we can come up with to get the world on side 
to manage consumption and exploitation of the planet, then so be it, but, 
like any other religion, one does not have to believe the dogma to get the 
benefits. 

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned 
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html