Richard, I think it will be interesting to see who reacts to these quotes negatively. I find them measured, balanced, and pretty much what I feel about the issue. I could not agree more with his last statement below; the dangers he cites are known and undisputed, and could be acted upon today. There just isn't enough hard science *yet* to make global warming supercede them in importance.
But I suspect -- as you have been pointing out -- that a few people are going to attempt to demonize Randi 1) because he didn't think much of TM and they bear him a grudge, and 2) because his stance challenges the attachment they feel towards their own supposed certainty on this issue. I have no dog in this fight. I certainly don't know the "truth" about AGW, and I don't think that there is enough hard evidence for *anyone* to know it. Therefore, when I hear people claim- ing to be "certain" -- on *either* side -- I react to them pretty much the same way I do when people claim certainty about spiritual matters. I laugh, and write them off as fanatics. *At the same time*, I think the performance of the largest industrialized nations at this climate change summit is nothing short of disgraceful, and fully support the African nations and others who have threatened to walk out. By making sure that enforceable options to reduce emissions are never discussed, the largest nations demonstrate their true allegiance clearly -- to the almighty buck, no matter what that might mean to the rest of the world. If the worst fears of AGW believers come true, I hope that those delegates from the U.S., from Japan, from China, and from other industrialized nations that kept real emission reduction from being even *discussed* at this summit are the first to be dragged out of their homes into the streets and staked out on a beach somewhere, there to await the "rising tide." --- In [email protected], "PaliGap" <compost...@...> wrote: > > "The myriad of influences that act upon Earth are so > many and so variable -- though not capricious -- that > I believe we simply cannot formulate an equation into > which we enter variables and come up with an answer. A > living planet will continually belch, vibrate, > fracture, and crumble a bit, and thus defeat an > accurate equation. Please note that this my amateur > opinion, based on probably insufficient data." > > And > > "CO2 is a natural molecule absolutely required for plant > life to survive, and in the process of growing, those > plants give off oxygen. We -- and all animal life -- > consume that oxygen and give off CO2" > > And > > "...as far as humans are concerned, ten times more > people die each year from the effects of cold than die > from the heat. This a hugely complex set of variables > we are trying to reduce to an equation... > > It's easy enough to believe that drought, floods, > hurricanes, and earthquakes are signs of a coming > catastrophe from global warming, but these are normal > variations of any climate that we -- and other forms > of life -- have survived" > > And > > "In my amateur opinion, more attention to disease > control, better hygienic conditions for food > production and clean water supplies, as well as > controlling the filth that we breathe from fossil fuel > use, are problems that should distract us from > fretting about baking in Global Warming" > > http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/805-agw-revisited.html
