[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Human vs. natural influences on the environment
-
Subject: Re: Human vs. natural influences on the environment
-
From: af329@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds)
-
Date: 2 Sep 1996 08:08:24 GMT
-
Article: 14589 of alt.sustainable.agriculture
-
Followup-To: alt.energy.renewable,alt.save.the.earth,alt.sustainable.agriculture,talk.environment,sci.environment
-
Newsgroups: alt.energy.renewable, alt.save.the.earth, alt.sustainable.agriculture, talk.environment, sci.environment
-
Organization: Hamilton-Wentworth FreeNet, Ontario, Canada.
-
References: <4t5chh$145@condor.ic.net> <4u8ilp$6sc_007@pm3-145.hal-pc.org> <JMC.96Aug26191028@Steam.stanford.edu> <5031da$5kv@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> <504hmm$pdp@spool.cs.wisc.edu> <50b2vn$oja@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>
-
Xref: newz.oit.unc.edu alt.energy.renewable:17653 alt.save.the.earth:22511 alt.sustainable.agriculture:14589 talk.environment:68595 sci.environment:104343
jw (jwas@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Since climate predictions are impossible now,
: the most effective course of action is probably to wait
: and see - and then, *if* there's an unfavorable
: change in climate (whether manmade or not,
: does not matter) - to counteract this change. To be
: able to do this, we must maximize, not
: minimize, our ability to impact global climate.
Your presumption that climate prediction is "impossible" now, is rather
silly. Models are available that make predictions today, and they have
been available for quite some time. It is a matter of accuracy and
confidence, not a matter of prediction.
Why you choose to state that prediction is not possible is very clear.
You do so because this is the easiest way to avoid being drawn into a
debate over the accuracy of the predictions that are being made.
Your choice to ignore the predictions that are made is good evidence
that you will not let evidence stand in the way of your personal convictions.
A fact that you make clear with every post.
I do however, agree with you in your statement that we should strive to
be able to drive the climate. Given that CO2 emissions are the primary
control we have over the climate, and given that we are unable to reduce
emissions without economic damage, it is obvious that alternate forms of
energy must be developed that can be sustituted for fossil fuels.
By far the best alternative is renewable energy sources of course, with
the best probably being PV or Solar Thermal.
: There's another consideration: climatology (like
: some other disciplines) has been
: corrupted as an objective science
: by its new prescriptive role - because power corrupts.
We see this kind of paranoia regularly coming from the political right
these days. It is growing like a cancer in the hearts and minds of the
scientifically illiterate, and the social misfits that have lost power
and economic standing as a result of the conservative policies of the
last two decades.
What is very sad is that these hate filled, paranoid claims are never
backed by evidence. I suppose this is to be expected when the claims of
conspiracy come from those who reject all evidence if it does not
correspond with their personal model of reality.
: One symptom of its corruption is that it is reversing
: the wise dictum "extraodinary claims require
: extraodinary proofs": instead, it demands weakened
: standards of proof - *because* of the putative
: practical importance of the issue. Nothing
: could be more dangerous.
Global warming is hardly an extraordinary claim. It is based on very
simple physics. Make the atmosphere more opaque to IR, and you tend to
increase the surface temperature. It is a well observed fact in the lab,
observed elsewhere in the solar system, and well as being simple common
sense.
Unfortunately among denialist loonies common sense died long ago.
: Shall we give
: pseudoscientists, sitting in global
: committes and defining truth by consensus,
: the keys to our freedom? - this is the main
: issue; warming or cooling are trifles compared to this.
I don't know of any scientists on the IPCC that had faked their
credentials. Hence I know of none who were pseudo-scientists.
Can you provide us with names JW? Or can we just consider your
statement dishonest slander?
: No, proof beyond reasonable doubt is the least
: - the least! - that we need before controlling global
: industry and economy on the basis of supposedly
: scientific claims.
I have no reasonable doubt. Nore do most of the worlds atmospheric
scientists - the people most qualified to know.
You clearly have doubts. But as you have shown yourself to be
an extremely unreasonable individual, we can easily dismiss your
complaints for what they really are. Ignorant denialism.
: If we want any science to be science,
: we must refuse to listen to any policy
: recommendations from it.
If you want economics to be a science, do you also insist that we
refuse to listen to any policy recommendations from it? I seem to
remember quite a number of economic policy decisions you support that
have come from economists.
Perhaps you think that economics is not a science. If you do. I must
agree with you here as well.
References: