In a message dated 8/27/2006 8:32:13 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
First, your theory presumes that manking is capable of having an effect upon the climate. Yet, you also seem to assume that whatever intentional effects we have on the conflict will always benign. There is, of course, the risk that in attempting to tinker with a process we hardly understand that we might end up causing even more damage to our welfare. This would be particularly ironic if we were in fact making serious sacrfices in order to effect these changes. Thus, it is not sufficient to simply say "because the risks are high, we must take action whatever the cost." These risks must always be balanced against other risks. There certainly is the risk of unknown consequences of our actions but doing nothing will have the predictable consequence of allowing global temperatures to continue to rise As another example, you seem to indicate that we should be sparing no cost in order to combat global warming. Should we not also be sparing no cost to develop an asteroid detection and deterrance system? Or perhaps sparing no cost to research the development of a shield for gamma ray bursts? One should allocate resources based on relative risk and consequence of that risk. Global warming is happening; its consequences are not fully understood but scientists are pretty much totally in agreement that it is occurring as we speak. Another asteroid strike is probably inevitable as well but the best science available does not provide data on when this will occur. We get whacked about every 28 million years and we are about 14 million years since the last hit so we are not exactly overdue. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
