>Your underlying assumption is that the climate change that "everyone
>agrees is happening" is caused by humans and that there is something
>humans do can change that.
I'm not making any assumptions. I can't. I'm not a scientist. I rely on
those who are wiser than I am to help me make decisions about what makes
sense to me.
Just about every scientific study, not tainted by industry, I've read
regarding "global warming" agrees that it's happening and it's happening
fast. Indeed it's being caused by human activity. Ice core studies have
shown this.
"If it walks like a duck quacks like a duck and swims like a duck..." It
ain't an otter
>
In fact there is just as much
>evidence that human activity is staving off the next ice age, just as
>volcanic action reversed ice ages in the past.
Are Ice ages a bad thing? Besides, that's a bogus argument. An Ice age is a
natural process a lot of good can come from it. Ask any farmer here in
Central Illinois what he thinks about the quality of the soil. And, to get
things back to racing, without an ice age there wouldn't be the Wisconsin
Kettle Morraine which makes Road America so much fun.
Whether there is anything we can do to change what's happening or not... I
don't know (not a scientist, remember?). But as I said before I'd like to go
down trying to make a difference than go down wondering "well... how the
hell did THAT happen?"
>We can't accurately and scientifically determine much of anything about
>the climate, any more than we can measure, predict or control the nature
>of any complex system much larger than one that fits on a lab table. It's
>hubris, blind faith or ignorance to think that we know that much.
I don't agree with you. Granted, Climatology is a young science but it's not
mumbo jumbo. there are ways of modeling different cliamatologic scenarios
using super computers that can give good ideas of what eventualities may
happen. It may not be something you can put on the table and say "there it
is". But climatology is something we know a whole lont more about than we
did 20 years ago.
But government
>policy directed by "green" concerns is every bit as well considered as
>that directed by the religious right, there are always unintended
>consequences galore. International "green" initiatives are blatant
>economic warfare.
"Laissez faire" hasn't worked with industry in the past... Wound you build a
house at Hanford? With thinking "green" we all must be made to clean up our
messes. If it costs extra to do this it's a cost of doing business It can be
a matter of life and death.
Regarding the religious right... it's all about power... keeping the status
quo and demagoguing anyone who thinks contrarywise to you. When you get down
to the "god squad" it it's "guys (who up to now have had all the power)
versus the gals". Thank you! I'd like to let the gals have a crack at things
for the next millenia.
Yep I recycle. I also have trash surfing around in my car until it hits
critical mass and I need to find a trash can. I know it's not much globally
but it's something I can do. Heck, I've even started cycling to work. `Not
so much for the environment but for the "green space" around my waist.
Finally, isn't it also hubris to say "There's no way we can know what really
will happen... the science is all too new... so lets do nothing?" If my
daughter had said that about the experimental cancer treatment she underwent
for her breast cancer, you wouldn't have met her at Monterey last year.
This has been fun,
Greg
Greg Petrolati Champaign, Illinois
That's not a leak... My car's just marking its territory...
|