Since Wayne cited the precautionary principle, I'll second what he says with some simpler and more direct language: If we act now under the premise that climate change is human-caused, and we are wrong about this cause, then the costs will be high but the benefits could still be tremendous in terms of reduced pollution and reductions in reliance on non-renewable carbon based energy sources. If we fail to act now under the premise that climate change is not human-caused, and we are wrong, the human and environmental costs could be catastrophic, particularly in third world and developing countries.
Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Tuesday, 03 March, 2009 20:48 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] CLIMATE CHANGE Anthropogenic ignition? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey! Y'all: Hamilton's point is well-taken--the devil is in the details. Speaking of circularity, "the boy who cried wolf" phenomenon might be on the opposite side of the clock diagram from "crying in the wilderness," each on the other side of the vertical or "midnight" position, i.e., "worlds" apart in one sense, but in the apparent sense close together. While I maintain a state of suspended judgment in the absence of evidence, neither do I recognize absence of evidence as evidence of absence. While CO2 well might be a surrogate for habitat destruction that is at once sufficiently vague and sufficiently (or vaguely) "scientific," I have decided to not cloud the issue just in case the right things get done, even if for the wrong reasons. It may well be true that one can't add up all the carbon emissions directly caused by culture, the possibility of a sort of "keystone" or "domino" effect might be laid in the lap of Homo sapiens, and there is little doubt that there is prima facie evidence that the contributions therefrom have increased for the last ten millennia or so. So . . . a case in absolute refutation is similarly difficult. Therein might lie the (evil or saintly?) "genius" behind the carbon obsession? In any case, it seems clear that, particularly given the probable futility of sufficient actual reduction ("credits" and other means of capitalizing upon the rage), the precautionary principle is probably preferable to the needless and heedless fraction of the unique human talent for consuming outside energy/mass cycles. That is, no matter how inevitably nutty human expression may be, no matter how "wrong" some might be, a change in current trends could benefit the earth and its life--even, perhaps, including the guilty parties. A Pax upon us all, great and small . . . WT "The suspension of judgment is the highest exercise in intellectual discipline." --Raymond Gilmore ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Hamilton" <rhami...@mc.edu> To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 9:11 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey! > Don't know if you want to post a contrasting view, but I'll offer one > up. > > No question that human generated CO2 is causing global warming, in my > opinion. There is, however, no evidence of a deleterious effect, > especially given the fact that the climate does and will change one way > or another anyways. Models predicting catastrophes have been overblown > to a degree that is embarrassing to an informed scientist, and results a > in classic "boy who cried wolf" type loss of credibility for informed > scientists. > > With respect to our ecological impact, habitat destruction is the #1 > negative human impact, and the overall ecological footprint is the real > issue, not just the "carbon footprint". There is no activity we engage > in as humans that is worse than the building of modern cities, > especially when you factor in the type of agricultural practices needed > to support those cities. The carbon footprint approach also strongly > discriminates against those living in poorer, more rural areas, singling > out the activities that support the economies in those areas as the > major problem, as opposed to the much more destructive activities of > people who live in urban areas, particularly modern urban areas. It's > obvuiously more politically prudent to attack the weak. > > There is an issue with global warming, but it is relatively minor, as > far as we know at this point in time, and it appears to be just another > way of deflecting the real issue, habitat conversion. Allowing people in > large modern cities to feel good about themselves re environmental > issues while continuing on with the most destructive of lifestyles. > > I recall reading many months ago about Leonardo DeCaprio wanting to buy > a tropical island and build an eco friendly resort being presented as > evidence of some sort of environmentally responsible act. Ridiculous, of > course, but one of the best examples of the sort or poor thinking that > drives a lot of the pop culture based environmental movement. > > Rob Hamilton > > > > "So easy it seemed once found, which yet > unfound most would have thought impossible" > > John Milton > ________________________________________ > > Robert G. Hamilton > Department of Biological Sciences > Mississippi College > P.O. Box 4045 > 200 South Capitol Street > Clinton, MS 39058 > Phone: (601) 925-3872 > FAX (601) 925-3978 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.6/1981 - Release Date: 03/03/09 07:25:00
