The argument on weather climate change is real or not is irrelevant. we have no way to know for sure, and really arguing about it is just wasting time we may not have. We DO have control over our actions and weather or not we choose to do something about it. At the end of the day there are 4 possible outcomes to this whole debate:
1) we act, it was not real. we waist time and money, hit a moderate recession, have some good new tech, but we survive in more or less our current form and live on. 2) we act, it WAS real, similar to 1 above, but we averted disaster 3) we dont act, it was not real - yippee for us, we got lucky (although since fossil fuels are finite in quantity, more likely to be as above ) 4) we dont act, it WAS real - say even the conservative estimates eventuate, billions of people die, billions more are short of food and water, world economies fall, sea levels rise, drouts, floods, mass extension, world wars, remnants of superpowers fighting over dwindling land and resources. etc. - life will go on, humans will probably survive, but it would be a very different world..... so since we cant know for sure weather climate change is real or not, not 100%, the only argument worth having is weather or not to act on the possibility. in the end it is an exercise in risk management. given the enormous consequence on not acting, and Climate change turning out to be real (4 above) then the ONLY sensible choice is to ACT!!!!!! the only thing we can know for sure is that over the next century there will be some very big changes in the world, and in the way we all live. It is up to all of us to make these transitions as smooth as possible. Understand the problems, look at the risks, for god sake open your eyes, pull your head out of the sand and make the RIGHT choice. NOW CAN WE GET BACK TO GLIDING :-) Cheers, Ben (part of the generation who will see what will happen, and has to survive in it, please leave us a liveable world) On 04/12/2007, at 10:21 AM, Mark Newton wrote: > > On 04/12/2007, at 9:19 AM, Mike Borgelt wrote: > >> Did you actually read the paper? > > Absolutely yes. And you're not the first person to refer me > to it either. > >> There's a very short summary here by David Evans, who used to be a >> believer and even made his living at it >> http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evans-CO2DoesNotCauseGW.pdf > > That's nice. He even cites Monckton, which is lovingly self- > referential. > >> Just look at the data. > > Here's the thing, Mike: > > Generally speaking, the scientists who are looking at this stuff, > who are often quite a bit smarter than I am, are "just look[ing] > at the data." > > As absurd as it may sound, some of them are smarter than you too. > :-) > > While challenging each other to "just look at the data," they > can't agree. In any group of highly respected climate scientists, > half of them will be dead wrong, and history will plot out their > legacy in the same way that it records flogiston and ether. They're > all looking at different bits of the data, and they're all coming > up with frankly absurd computational models to predict climactic > behaviour. Until one of them can accurately predict what's going > to happen more than 5 years ahead, _none_ of them are worth > listening to. > > So here's my take: Acknowledging that I'm not smart enough to > be authoritative on this, I'm not drawing conclusions and am > keeping an open mind. That is, after all, what's required of > a skeptical enquirer, right? > > Another thing that's required of a skeptical enquirer is > to question sources, and that's what I've done with Monckton. > > If _you_ were a proper skeptic, you'd be doing the same, just > like I'm guessing you do with Mann's hockey stick and the IPCC, > and comparing sea level rise predictions with observed sea > levels. It strikes me that by only criticising the positions > you disagree with, you've probably formed some conclusions which > the science is not yet capable of supporting. > > Monckton's record paints him as someone who's unbalanced enough to > carry a taint even without considering the funding he receives > from the petrochemical industry. If the science supporting your > position is anywhere near as strong as you claim it is, you should > be able to find a better advocate than him. > > That is all. Carry on. > > - mark > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > I tried an internal modem, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > but it hurt when I walked. Mark Newton > ----- Voice: +61-4-1620-2223 ------------- Fax: +61-8-82231777 ----- > > > _______________________________________________ > Aus-soaring mailing list > Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net > To check or change subscription details, visit: > http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
