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

Re: Human vs. natural influences on the environment



"D. Braun" <dbraun@u.washington.edu> wrote for all to see:

>On 27 Aug 1996, John McCarthy wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Actually, the global warming issue isn't an issue any longer, but a
>reality. The recent IPCC report settled that. 

You think so?  I tend to disagree with you.  There has been some
controvery concerning that report, with some of the participants
claiming that the body of the report changed to conform to a more
alarmist summary.  The administrators state that the changes were made
only in response to the initiatives by some of the other participants,
but that does not change the fact that some object to portions of the
report.

In any case, if I remember correctly, the report forcasts an average
global 0.5 C change in the next hundred or so years.  I still do not
see that, even if all scientists agreed, as any type of emergency.

Regards, Harold
-------
"Ecology is rather like sex-every new generation likes to think they were
the first to discover it."
	---Michael Allaby, Times (London, 6 Oct 1989).



Follow-Ups: References: