Glen -
> One of the necessary steps toward a useful dialect about anthropogenic
> climate change is: stop abusing English.
I think you lead with your chin on this one... someone deliberately
spoofing or lampooning you couldn't have picked a better mischoice of
words in this context.
Unless you are using the term "dialect" in a sense radically different
than I am familiar with, I assume you meant "dialog".
I think Roger's original comment still holds:
To paraphrase Roger:
Both the global economy and ecology are complex dynamical systems
which are likely to have unpredictable (and presumably unpleasant)
responses to small perturbations. The same arguements often used by
so-called "conservatives" to protect the economy from the perturbation
of environmental regulations (interference) can as readily be applied in
the protection of the ecology from the perturbation by continued
profligate release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the
name of "industry, commerce and progress".
While my sympathies are generally aligned with the issues favored by
Liberal or Progressive politics, I have very little use for most of the
politicians wearing those colors on their sleeves (podiums?).
I am still waiting for Al Gore to reconcile his support of lifting the
55mph speed limit with his profession of having been deeply aware of the
problem of releasing so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere through
our extravagant use of fossil fuels. As much as I hated that
nearly-arbitrary constraint on my desire do drive like a bat out of
hell, I cannot imagine how lifting it did not increase our "carbon
footprint", as it were, significantly. If Gore is as scientific as he
professes to be and as aware of and interested in preventing global
warming as he seems to be, why in hell did he help increase our
consumption of fossil fuels (and release of carbon dioxide) in highway
transportation for personal and commercial use?
It would be hard to convince me that increased average speeds *improve*
fuel efficiency and even more significantly, that increased average
speeds lead to fewer miles driven by private and commercial drivers.
Surely there are estimates of miles driven and fuel consumed before and
after that speed limit change. The point (as I remember it) was to
stimulate our economy through increased efficiency in transportation.
I think it worked, but Gore of all people should have known the cost in
terms of carbon emmissions.
Anyone know the numbers around this? Or any explanation Gore has given
for these seemingly contradictory political positions?
============================================================
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
