[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Human vs. natural influences on the environment
In <3225C9F3.27A36B48@math.nwu.edu> Leonard Evens <len@math.nwu.edu>
writes:
>
>jw wrote:
>>
>> In <4vv6t5$q0@igc.apc.org> tomgray <tomgray@igc.apc.org> writes:
>> >
>> >"D. Braun" <dbraun@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>My sentiments exactly. I was wondering, though, what is the best
>> method of
>> >>addressing the counter-intuitive reasoning of many who believe
that
>> >>because global warming might not be occurring, or might not be
"bad",
>> >>nothing needs to be done?
>> >
>>
>> There's nothing counter-intuitive about it; it's common sense.
The common-sense rule that applies is "if it works, don't fix it".
>If something might happen and then again it might not happen, common
>sense does not suggest no consequences for behavior. For example,
were
>I to start smoking, I might become addicted and I might not. If I
did
>become addicted, I might die of lung cancer and I might not.
A bad analogy. You might personally escape some of
the bad consequences of
smoking, but statistically they *exist*, this is a known fact.
By contrast, here we have a situation when, by hypothesis (see above)
"global warming might not be occurring, or might not be 'bad'".
In that case, by acting to control global industry, you
are as likely to damage the climate as to improve it,
while you are *certainly* diminishing freedom and *certainly*
harming the economy.
>Since climate change of some significance is quite plausible,
>albeit not certain,
No, climate change of *some* significance is practically
*certain*: the climate is always in motion. Industrial
emissions are just as likely to make this change
smaller as greater, or to make it better as worse.
>it would at least make sense to take measures,
You mean - "measures" to *counteract* the change? But what if
your measures exacerbate the change? E.g., you are
trying to prevent warming while the climate is actually cooling?
Or - what if you actually like the change?
And, you mean - "measures" by governments? A Trojan
horse alert! Merely because the climate always changes,
must the economy be government controlled?
>such as more efficient use of energy,
Always desirable; and always improving;
but - "measures"?
Consider this analogy: efficient use of bandwidth
by making our postings sensible is
highly desirable; should governments
or the UNO *censor* them for that reason?
That would be taking "measures".
What applies to freedom of speech applies, mutatis mutandis,
to economic freedom.
>use of renewable fuels like wind,
Sure, why not; if it is competitive, it should and will
be used; if not, it should not.
But here's another Greek soldier springing from the
bowels of the Trojan horse: what does renewability
have to do with "global warming", eh?
Two unconnected issues; yet you are trying
(unconsciously, I'm sure) to
smuggle the one under the cover of the other.
Follow-Ups:
References: