On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 06:21:41PM -0700, Divya Sampath wrote: > The consensus on the question 'is the climate > changing?' *is* based on observable facts from a wide > range of sources - satellite evidence, polar melt, > Antarctic ice core analysis, rainfall records, sea > sediments, etc. - and IMO is a valid argument in the > same way that the broad consensus on the theory of > evolution is (again, based on observable facts). > *Causality* is where the controversy lies.
True. > > The measures > > I'd support are the same as the one I'd support > > irrespective of > > whether global warming turned out to be > > anthropogenic or not - > > reducing emissions and fuel consumption of vehicles, > > replacing > > incandescent bulbs with CFLs, harnessing solar > > energy, etc. > > I would actually support those and other measures from > motives beyond just CO2 emission control: sustainable > and renewable energy that is not based on finite oil > reserves, cheaper (ultimately) energy available to > more people on the planet, cleaner air for us all to > breathe, and so on. To me, concern about climate > change is one part of broad concerns about > environmental issues- another biggie happens to be the > adverse effect of human intervention on bio-diversity. Agree with you there. My main concern is that the rate at which the hysteria is building up, we are rapidly losing perspective. A simple example would be the issue of replacing incandescent bulbs with CFLs. Personally, I think it is a good idea, but then I'm no expert. And there is little debate about the dangers of CFLs (recycling, mercury content, etc.) because you have the threat of annihilation due to global warming if you don't switch! > Scepticism is one of our most valuable tools in > science. I think we agree that the pursuit of facts > should not be subverted by emotion, religion, > politics, or 'the accepted view'. That said, I stand > by my belief about pragmatic action to contain > chemical emissions (not just CO2), in the face of our > current state of knowledge about how human > interactions are affecting the environment. No contest. Measures like reducing emissions are no-brainers. Am not so sure about schemes like carbon credits. As Charles Krauthammer mentions[1], they seem awfully similar to the indulgences sold by the medieval Catholic Church! And it seems to be working pretty good for Al Gore![2] :) Pollution affects us directly and there are really no reasons why we should not be working to contain chemical emissions. Whether it is affecting the planet as a whole still remains to be seen, in my opinion. Venky. References: [1] http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1599714,00.html [2] http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528
