[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: fHuman vs. natural influences on the environment
charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote:
>In article <4uo6j9$8lv@igc.apc.org>, tomgray
><tomgray@igc.apc.org> wrote:
>(BIG CUT)
>
>>It's fine with me if nature works that way. My contention
>>is simply that we should avoid knowingly altering the
>>parameters to the degree that we can. What's the point of
>>trying to take basic steps, like preserving wetlands or curbing
>>development in some areas, to reduce the pressure on endangered
>>species, and then do nothing about climate change?
>
>Let me propose the "opposite" question. If we know of some
>"natural" forcing function that will change the earth's
>temperature (either up or down) over a relevant time frame,
>and we think that this change will adversely impact a few
>species, should we intervene to prevent this change? Why?
No. Why? Because we are not the source of the forcing function, as we
are with global warming.
The other difference is, natural forcing functions that cause change at
the rate we are causing it do exist, but seem to be pretty rare.
Tom Gray
Director of Communications
American Wind Energy Association
PS Support renewable energy! Visit the Electronic Lobbyist For
Renewable Energy Web Site:
http://www.netcom.com/~stevie2/budget.html
Interested in energy and the environment? The free electronic
edition of _Wind Energy Weekly_ reports on energy-related
environmental issues, energy policy, and wind industry trade
news. The electronic edition normally runs about 10kb in length.
For a subscription, send me an e-mail request. Please include
information on your position, organization, and reason for
interest in the publication.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Gray <tomgray@econet.org>
Follow-Ups:
References: