Tom Thomas ('69)

Hello, this is November 2021.

Paul Safyan

Tom:

Can you see this?

Andrew Eskind

Thanks for the article in Oberlin Review discussing the management transparency and social responsibilty of the endowment.   The additional question I wish to pose is what policy, if any, does the endowment take regarding BDS (boycott, divest, sanction)?

Dick Hobby

I just got the email saying that a group of Oberlin students, faculty, and alumni are proposing that Oberlin divest of all fossil fuel companies.

I believe this is a big mistake.

Despite all the propaganda that CO2 is a danger to the planet, the scientific facts say otherwise.  CO2 is a harmless trace gas that helps plants grow.  We need more of it not less.

Dr. Richard Lindzen at MIT, who spoke at Oberlin about this some years ago, and thousands of top scientists around the globe all agree that so-called greenhouse gases are not a problem.

We should promote the use of coal, oil, and gas---especially coal as it is plentiful and can be burned cleanly.

The global warming side uses computer models that have never been right.  Garbage in garbage out.

I would encourage everyone to do what you can to defeat this divestment proposal.

Dick Hobby

Daniel Miller

Mr. Hobby is an example of "a little learning is a dangerous thing, drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring."  

CO2 is not harmless.  Plants have adapted to the levels that used to be prevalent and are not able to adapt quickly enough to the rising temperatures caused by rising levels of CO2.  Instead we are already seeing the consequences of reduced crop production brought about by increased summertime temperatures.  In order to avoid dehydration from high temperature, the leaf stomata shut down when temperatures pass their limit which means that CO2 is not being processed during the hottest part of the day and plants are not growing.

Thousands of scientists around the world most assuredly do NOT agree that increased CO2 is beneficial.  On the contrary they are tearing their hair out because disasters related to increased global warming are occurring more rapidly than was thought possible and people are not doing anything to cut down of GHG being spewed into the atmosphere.  The only problem with the models has been that they are too conservative and have based their predictions on hope.  We are now seeing the consequences of that hope disappearing.

Shirley Smith (Kirsten)

I applaud and support the divestment proposal unequivocally.  Shirley Smith Kirsten

Robert Wolfe

I strongly support the proposal to divest from fossil fuel industries. In general, investments in fossil fuel industries are poor choices for both financial and societal reasons. 

Based on costs, the energy sector and the financial markets have made a clear decision that renewable sources of energy are where the profits are. Most planning for new energy plants is based on renewable energy sources including photovoltaic and wind sources with storage systems. The cost trends suggest that renewable energy sources will become even less expensive as technology advances. The costs of fossil fuels are volatile and fossil fuel industries currently receive massive subsidies so that they do not have to pay for many of the toxic clean-up, climate disasters, or health problems that they cause. Once those subsidies are removed, the fossil fuel industries could prove to be massive liabilities, rather than assets worthy of investment. It is likely that there is still profit to be made from fossil fuel sources in the short term, as they are retired, but uncertainty and potential liabilites make them a poor investment choice for financial stability.

The greenhouse effect of CO2 is a proven fact. There are no scientists who dispute the effect. The complexity of biological and weather feedback systems makes it difficult to predict exactly what will happen under various scenarios of increasing CO2, but the fact-based models that have been developed to date have provided very useful predictions. The predictions of more frequent and more severe heat waves, floods, hurricanes, and droughts; rising ocean levels; disruptions to agriculture; and loss of plant and animal habitats have all proven to be painfully correct. So far, the adverse costs and impact of these outcomes have been worse than what has been predicted by many of the models, but the models continue to improve as more scientific facts and more accurate data are incorporated in them.

Ralph Shapira

Good posts, Daniel Miller and Robert Wolfe

Paul Safyan

Those of you who are speaking in favor of divestment should consider using the link to sign your name to the letter.  I appreicate those with contrary views reading through the proposed letter.

Dick Hobby

 Nothing that Daniel Miller says is correct---including his opening sentence, which is not only false but insulting.  He knows nothing about me and if he did he would know that i have studied this subject in depth for over 35 yeard and have read and talked to scientists on BOTH sides, which Daniel Miller clearly has not.

How sad that so many people read only the global warming propaganda, believe it, and then refuse to read anything that threatens their beliefs.

I stand by my statement that thousands of scientists worldwide know that CO2 is not a problem.  

Daniel Miller could start with Richard Lindzen at MIT and proceed from there.  

Dick Hobby

Dick Hobby

Robert Wolfe says "The greenhouse effect of CO2 is a proven fact. There are no scientists who dispute the effect."

Neither statement is true.  CO2 has a tiny effect on climate and temperature---so small that it is statistically insignificant.

And none of the disasters he lists are actually happening.

Robert Wolfe should read the top scientists on this such as Richard Lindzen at MIT.

Dick Hobby

Robert Baker

I completely support divestment of fossil fuel stocks by Oberlin; having divested such stocks from my personal portfolio. 

Richard Apling

Perhaps My. Hobby should check the science of these colleagues of Prof. Lindzen in MIT's program of Atmosphere, Oceans, and Climate: http://climate-science.mit.edu/news/featured-stories/mit-faculty-working-on-climate-write-to-president-trump

Rick Apling

Daniel Miller

Richard Lindzen hardly counts as one of the top scientists in the field of climate change.  If you want to check out real scientists doing research in climate change, then start with John Cook, James Hansen, Michael Mann, Keywan Riahi, Anthony Leiserowitz, Pierre Friedlingstein, Detlef van Vuuren, ...  

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/climate-change-scientists-list/

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/section/climate-change-scientists/

https://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2743/the-scientific-method-and-climate-change-how-scientists-know/

I especially like this one because it speaks directly to some of the fabrications the deniers have come up with: https://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-climate-scientists-debunk-global-warming-myths-2021-3?r=MX&IR=T

If you want to see a denier get egg all over his face, look at Alex Epstein's article from 2015 and compare it with our present situation: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/?sh=32a47df43f9f

And here is the latest, and realize that it was watered down by countries that don't want to get off the fossil fuel teat so reality is worse than it says: https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/04/1115452

If you want to follow current research: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/feed/atom/

As for your "35 years of in depth study," I can assure you that it was time and effort wasted.  You need to actually read the studies that have been done and understand the basis for their results.  From your statements, it is obvious that Mr. Pope's observations on learning apply in spades.

Dick Hobby

To Richard Apling:

    Yes I am fully aware that Dr. Lindzen's colleagues at MIT wrote that letter to Trump.  I read it when it came out as part of my practice of reading both sides diligently.

     But science is not decided by majority vote.  It is decided strictly by evidence.

     How many articles by Lindzen have you read, Mr. Apling?  How many articles by other top scientists who agree with Lindzen have you read?

      I have read hundreds of articles by scientists on both sides and having done that it is clear that those promoting human caused global warming are wrong.

Dick Hobby

Dick Hobby

To Daniel Miller:

1   Your first article is is just a list of whom Reuters considers top climate scientists.  Reuters already believes in human caused global warming so this list is not actual evidence supporting the AGW (anthropo global warming) hypothesis.  This is just one organization promoting what it already believes.

2   More of the same from Reuters

3   The next is just a list from the Governor's office in California:  "The following are scientific organizations that hold the position that Climate Change has been caused by human action:"  Just listing people and organizations on your side is not evidence.  

4   The next article is from NASA and makes the claim that it is using the scientific method and has arrived at the conclusion that "it is likely" that humans are causing global warming.  I have read many articles like this.  But other scientists using the scientific method have arrived at the opposite conclusion.  In order to find out who is right it is essential that one read hundreds of articles from top scientists on both sides.  I have done this.  How many articles by scientists challenging the AGW hypothesis have you read?

No one denies that the CO2 levels have gone from roughly 300 ppm to roughly 400 ppm.  That fact is not proof that humans are causing global warming.

5   Next you give a video in Business Insider claiming they are "debunking 13 of the biggest climate change myths".  I have read and watched many similar articles/videos.  But those who debunk are not speaking ex cathedra.  Why do you trust them?  

6   You use the term  "denier".   Pro-AGW people use this term but it is contemptuous and dismissive as if to say:  we don't have to bother with those fools over there.  I would suggest you refrain from using this term and its cousin  "denialist" as it gives the impression that you think that by smearing people you don't have to engage with those people or their ideas and evidence.

7   You claim Alex Epstein in Forbes has egg on his face for simply pointing out that the methodology for the study that claims that 97% of scientists agree with AGW was severely flawed and that the conclusion is therefore wrong.  I have never seen a credible rebuttal to Epstein's challenge.  So I see no egg.

Also again you call Epstein a denier.  Doing this just makes you look weak and petty and a little nasty.  I would encourage you do stop doing this.

8    The next article is a UN report.  You present it as if it is the truth----case closed, no need to look further.  The UN is a political body and the IPCC is organized and run by the UN.  Why should we trust it?  Of course it is possible that the UN could nevertheless somehow create a completely independent committee where only rigorous science is carried out.  But if that is so why have quite a number of scientists resigned in protest when the papers they presented were changed to fit the AGW narrative.

9   You then give me a link to Real Climate.  Fine.  I understand what they are saying.  You present this as if it is definitive and the end of the story and anyone who says otherwise is a denier.  There are plenty of sites saying the opposite.

10   And finally you say:  "As for your "35 years of in depth study," I can assure you that it was time and effort wasted.  You need to actually read the studies that have been done and understand the basis for their results.  From your statements, it is obvious that Mr. Pope's observations on learning apply in spades"

Why do you resort to insult?  It only makes you look small.

So in summary:

1  Using smear and insult undermines your credibility.  By the way, I find that those who believe in AGW do this a lot while those skeptical of AGW rarely do.

2   Nothing you have presented is at all convincing.

3    I get the sense that you have read almost nothing by scientists who challenge AGW.  How many articles have you read in depth by people such as Lindzen.   

4    Having read hundreds of articles on BOTH sides I can say with great certainty that CO2 is a harmless trace gas and the AGW hypothesis is false.

 
Dick Hobby
 

Daniel Miller

You kind of missed the point.  Your "thousands of scientists who don't believe in global warming" vs. an actual list of a thousand real scientists who do believe and who are actually working in the field.  Then there are the scientists who have shown how global warming works plus the long list of organizations who have done and are doing the same.  Your claim that you have read hundreds of articles by scientists who dismiss global warming is destroyed by your inability to list any whereas the various articles cited show beyond a doubt that real scientists are indeed showing that humans are causing the massive increase in CO2 and other GHG.

Debunking isn't done by speaking ex cathedra.  It is done as these people do by showing how the myths put forth by the deniers make no sense.  Epstein got egg on his face for claiming that global warming was nothing to be concerned about, not because of any claim about 97% of scientists supporting global warming.

And as for claiming that "denier" is a slur, what else would you call someone who denies what is clearly in front of his face?  And through all your screeds, you keep going on about all of these studies denying global warming yet you never bother to mention where they can be found.  The only two "scientists" who made a name for themselves by denying global warming, Lindzen and a guy in Alabama, have been effectively shot down by the evidence and are not even in the business of doing research anymore.  I hope you don't count the guy in CA who "neglected" to mention that EXXON was paying him for his publications which didn't actually involve him doing research, but rather put his own spin on research that other scientists had done.

You need to stop making general statements about scientists who don't exist and start making definitive examples of what you claim they are saying.

Daniel Miller

 Yes I am fully aware that Dr. Lindzen's colleagues at MIT wrote that letter to Trump.  I read it when it came out as part of my practice of reading both sides diligently.

     But science is not decided by majority vote.  It is decided strictly by evidence.

And Dr. Lindzen's colleagues have the evidence and Dr. Lindzen doesn't.  It's as simple as that.

Paul Safyan

I'm glad we are having a discussion that engages both sides about the science with respect to the science regarding climate change.  I don't think we will reach an agreement as we are citing different sources, a challenge with all the controverial issues that we are facing in this time.

I'd be curious to learn if there are more supporters of Dick Hobby's posiiton.  Dick is one of those educated folks--Oberlin College Government being in his background who reads the science diffferntly from most of us and rightly points out that the "pro-vaccinators" are setting policy, albeit in somewhat contradictory ways at times.  And I wonder if there is a way to make this any more a democraic process.  The group Braver Angels (www.braverangels.org) is trying to do so.  In the meantime, this respectfull debate ranges on.

Gregory Pyke

I am confused Paul. Does Dick Hobby also oppose vaccination in addition to human caused climate change? Does that mean hundreds MORE articles read? Sorry not sorry. 
 

Paul Safyan

Greg:  yes, he does, and I seem to have conflated two off-line discussions in my original remark. I've now edited that to the science around climate change.  My error.

Paul

Paul Safyan

Greg:  yes, he does, and I seem to have conflated two off-line discussions in my original remark. I've now edited that to the science around climate change.  My error.

Paul

Donald Salisbury

I do feel a need to enter into this discussion. As a practicing scientist - in theoretical physics - I am fully aware that it is perhaps surprising to others who are not engaged in this profession that nothing is absolutely certain. Scientific decisions rely on a preponderance of experimental evidence with supporting theoretical foundations. The key in the climate debate, as in all other scientific fields, is the degree of accord among the experts. These experts have attained their respected status through peer-reviewed research. Certainly there will be some discord, but unless and until a large fraction of practitoners can pose objections that cannot be disproven we must respect the decisions of the vast majority of experts. This vast majority of experts agree that we face a climate change catastrophy if carbon dioxide levels are not reduced. This - accompanied with my own somewhat rudimentary knowledge of climate models - has led to my support of the divestment initiative, and I urge all to join in this emergency effort.

Robert Dickinson

I'm not sure I understand the logic of the divestment initiative?  Are you hoping by not owning stock in Exxon, or Chevron, or Florida Power and light, you will put them out of business?  These companies are also the companies spending enormous amounts of money on alternative energy sources.  These companies are also critical to the transmission of energy, regardless of who generates it!  If it gives you satisfaction that this is your only way of demonstrating against energy producers, have at it, but you'll also miss out on some great financial returns.  As the saying goes some people would rather "cut off their nose to spite their face".  

Dick Hobby

I had a long conversation with Paul Safyan and w corresponded by email regarding a number of issues.  Throughout the conversation Paul was thoughtful and courteous and open.  

In contrast Daniel Miller is arrogant and discourteous.  He reads the scientists who currently represent the orthodoxy but he does not bother to read in depth anyone on the other side of this debate.  He is just repeating what those currently in power are saying.

This approach is typical of those who believe in human caused global warming.  Instead of reading Lindzen for example they turn to debunkers and smear artists.

No real scientist would do this.

Concescension and arrogance and contemptuousness are the signs of weakness in both character and science.

Such people are not about science.  They are about power.

Peter Duesberg at UC Berkeley was considered to be the top scientist in retroviruses.  He got every grant he applied for and he was invited to speak and he got his papers published.  But then in 1987 he came out and said AIDS was not caused by HIV.  Overnight he became a pariah.  He was censored and could not publish, he got no more grants.  

As with global warming I read many articles on both sides to see who was right.  Duesbergs evidence was and is more compelling.  Also his banishment by those in power is another very bad sign.  Real scientists would welcome someone of Duesberg's stature into a discussion.

Sometimes the orthodox position is correct.  but now always.  After gooking carefully at the ideas on both sides I have concluded the following:

1    Lindzen isr right about global warming---CO2 is not a problem

2    Duesberg is right about AIDS---it is not caused by HIV

3    Robert Kennedy Jr is right about the covid vaccines---they are very dangerous

    Notice that the response to Kennedy is censorship, smear, dismissal, condescension.  Why would anyone trust people who do this?

Dick Hobby