Yes, that's one of the tightly reasoned paths, but how do you stop growth without wrecking everything?? Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message----- From: David Breecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 21:50:35 To:The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics I am frankly mystified by the conversation. No one I know of who is legitimately evaluating the data pretends to have any certainty as to the anthropogenic component. The issues have to do with the likelihood of continued warming; the effects that that trend would have; the risks and rewards of inaction (supposing that we are a primary cause); and the risks and reward of action (same supposition). And I haven't seen a legitimate analysis within that framework that comes out anywhere but here: Act now, because if it is anthropogenic, the risk/reward profile of action is overwhelmingly positive, and that of inaction potentially (or even probably) catastrophic. Surely folks don't think we need certainty before acting, especially when we know we won't be certain until it's (probably) too late to act, if we are the cause? That kind of thinking could give scientists a bad name ;-) db On Aug 11, 2007, at 9:15 PM, Owen Densmore wrote: Indeed! BTW: Just as a pointer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology> .. has an overview of Paleoclimatology Note the quote: Changes in the atmosphere may also exert an important influence over climate change. The establishment of CO2-consuming (and oxygen- producing) photosythesizing organisms in the Precambrian led to the production of an atmosphere much like today's, though for most of this period it was much higher in CO2 than today. Similarly, the Earth's average temperature was also frequently higher than at present, though it has been argued that over very long time scales climate is largely decoupled from carbon dioxide variations (Veizer et al. 2000). BTW: I really do hedge my bets .. and I am thinking about various means of minimizing my personal impact. But I sure don't think we understand this critter. The whole damn earth, fer heaven sakes! Talk about Gaia! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis> -- Owen On Aug 11, 2007, at 8:01 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote: Owen, I find it quite refreshing to hear someone express the viewpoint that we simply don't know to what extent human activity effects global warming. My left-wing-nut friends all go batty on the subject, falling down on their knees to worship Al Gore when the subject comes up. Even the smart ones are totally sold on the concept that humans caused the current global warming trend. Anyone who claims to have figured out this particular global complex system and is stating with absolute certainty that humans are The Cause of the current climate trend goes down in my book as just a tad gullible. I concede that it is possible, perhaps even likely that humans are affecting the global climate. But we certainly don't understand the global/ celestial climate dynamic well enough to prove it. I mean come on, for crying out loud: we just discovered that neutrinos have mass. We think. --Doug -- Doug Roberts, RTI International [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell On 8/11/07, Owen Densmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: I have to agree .. in the sense that a SFI climate paleontologist couched the issue: There is certainly a very recent correlation between CO2 and an upward trend in temperature. But when one looks at multi-million year variations, we are actually in a cool area, and that the cause/ effect between any human activity pales in comparison to things like meteor impacts and volcanic action. Thus much of the buzz is likely very inaccurate and unfounded. BUT, personally, there is certainly no reason to NOT minimize man's impact on the environment. I think when the dust settles (so to speak!) we'll find that we simply currently have no idea why the earth goes through ice ages and hot ages. We may get hints if we really honestly try. But I go along with the SFI researcher: it doesn't hurt to be cautious. Its interesting that there are large gas/oil reserves under the ice caps. Yet how did that happen if these result from organic decay? Dyson also has an answer for that: there may be earth-core activities that contribute a great deal to oil. -- Owen ============================================================ 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 <http://www.friam.org> ============================================================ 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 <http://www.friam.org> ============================================================ 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 <http://www.friam.org> dba | David Breecker Associates, Inc. Santa Fe: 505-690-2335 Abiquiu: 505-685-4891 www.BreeckerAssociates.com ============================================================ 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 ============================================================ 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
