[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Human vs. natural influences on the environment



brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) wrote:
> I have no doubt that we want to minimize CO2 in the atmosphere, and
> further no doubt that wind will be a competitive technology (though I
> would not want to live next to a wind farm).  But the more accurate
> projections we are beginning to see do not persuade me we need any
> kind of emergency approach to the problem.

Not sure what is meant by an *emergency approach*, but most of
post I have seen so far are not suggesting anything drastic.

It is interesting that this method of arguing keeps being repeated
over and over.  The topic is assumed to be divided into two extremes,
without a range of moderate views.

> "By September 1979, all important life in the sea was extinct. 
> Large areas of coastline had to be evacuated...  A pretty grim 
> scenario. Unfortunately were a long way into it already...based 
> on projections of trends already appearing..."
>    - Paul Ehrilich, Environmental Handbook, 1970, pp 174

OK, the world is full of bad predictions.  Our interest should
be to look at the facts and decide if todays predictions are
based on good science or immature science.  The best way to do
that is to discuss todays science and the recommendations by
a consensus.  Why introduce radical views or obsolete views
just to create a villain.

Jeff
--
kowens@teleport.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 220-1016 (2400-14400, N81)



Follow-Ups: References: