Owen Densmore wrote: > BUT, personally, there is certainly > no reason to NOT minimize man's impact on the environment. > He (Freeman Dyson) wrote: > There is no doubt that parts of the world are getting warmer, but the > warming is not global. I am not saying that the warming does not cause > problems. Obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to > understand it better. I am saying that the problems are grossly > exaggerated. They take away money and attention from other problems > that are more urgent and more important, such as poverty and > infectious disease and public education and public health, and the > preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans I wonder what is the vast budget that he imagines is or will go into global warming above and beyond research, which he advocates? Maybe forcing transportation and energy companies to come up with renewable sources of energy, that we will need sooner or later anyway?
He goes on to say: > When we are trying to take care of a planet, just as when we are > taking care of a human patient, diseases must be diagnosed before they > can be cured. Huh, I'm I the only one that's has had a doctor say "you have one of three things, they are all treatable with X." (where X is antibiotics, steroids, etc.) If the risks are high enough, and the costs much less, then even 90% _uncertainty_ seems pretty reasonable. What if you went to the airport and they shrugged, "oh, there's a 10% chance your plane will crash". Of course you nod in disgust and say, "Don't bother me with your neurotic worries!" 1 out of 10 planes crashing to the ground?? ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
