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

Re: Human vs. natural influences on the environment



In article <IZW8oS9cpoND069yn@teleport.com> kowens@teleport.com (Jeff Owens) writes:
 
 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.
 
Ehrlich's obsolete views are worth quoting because he is still
recognized as an authority.  Only last year he received the $350,000
Heinz prize for his writings on population and environment.

He continues with predictions of doom, although less flamboyantly than
when he was younger.
-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/





Follow-Ups: References: