On Dec 21, 2009, at 9:43 AM, Fred B. Ellison quoted: Interesting and on very much on target in some respects.
> Winning and Losing the Global Warming DebateRoger A. Pielke, Jr. > Environmental and Societal Impacts Group > National Center for Atmospheric Research > > Daniel Sarewitz > Center for Science, Policy, and Outcomes > Columbia University > [snip] > The debate can be summarized asGlobal Warming: YES or NO? [snip] Actually, the Global Warming advocated have always tried to frame it this way, but many scientists have always seen a much broader set of questions: how does human activity affect the environment? What can we do to mitigate adverse effects? "Global Warming" was always a problem looking for a problem: first you have to prove that it is happening/ will happen, then come up with a supposed mechanism and the grounds for either are slim. You end up with a deeply circular argument. On the other hand, we KNOW we do cause environmental change; we simply don't always understand how or fully appreciate the long-term consequences because we just don't understand how the planet works on that level yet. > In short, let both sides declare victory. They can then ask instead > how to make society and the environment less vulnerable to climate. > The IPCC has already started to focus its attention on vulnerability > and adaptation to climate, but its steps in this direction must be > bolder. > Some say that a focus on adaptation might result in "every country > for itself." It need not. The U.N. Framework Convention provides a > mechanism through which the world's climate "winners" can help boost > the resilience of the climate "losers." When climate does change, > the distribution of winners and losers might also change, but shared > assistance would persist. > These steps defy conventional wisdom. They are unlikely to be > popular, given that the status quo sustains Cassandras and Dorothies > alike. Unfortunately, in spite of the high moral rhetoric from both > sides, the debate itself stands in the way of further progress. We > need a third way to confront climate change, even if it means moving > beyond now-comfortable positions held fast for many years. > Climate changes. Let's deal with it. This is more sensible. We should always aim to make communities more resilient in the face of change,whether or not man-made. We should always act with prudence as far as trying to limit our negative impact, making sure we use diverse technologies and energy sources in order to disperse the effects of our industry. But heavy-handed, government-centered "mandates" for change have always been idiotic. You tell me how you are going to write a set of rules that will cover both Washington suburbanites and Kalahari Bushmen fairly in their impact on the environment! To me, it has always simply been about stewardship: you take care of the land and the land takes care of you. Sincerely, Eric Vought "Faith does not absolve us from trying to understand our world and make moral distinctions with the eyes and brain given us. Religion is as much responsibility as direction: Duty not Distinction." -- This is a Free Speech forum. The owner of this list assumes no responsibility for the intellectual or emotional maturity of its members. If you do not like what is being said here, filter it to trash, ignore it or leave. If you leave, learn how to do this for yourself. If you do not, you will be here forever.
