> In it, Gardner asserts that David Suzuki's stance on the ecological crisis > is obviously self contradictory. On the one hand Suzuki says that the > outcome of geo-engineering responses to the climate crisis would be > unpredictable and perhaps disastrous, so we should not pursue them. > On the other hand, Suzuki says that computer model of the evolving > climate predict disaster, so we should act to avoid that disaster. Gardner > concludes that Suzuki cannot see that these are logically incompatible
Gardner's conclusion is wrong. There is no contradiction between saying that the climate crisis is predictable but the outcomes of geo-tinkering are not. Because the former is a long-term development about which there are past data to be extrapolated, but the latter is an entirely new venture. Anyway, the answer must be emissions reductions and renewable energies, not geo-tinkering. Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
