Christoph's latest argument is, as has been the case all through this
discussion of IPCC and Kyoto, a non sequitur.
I am fully aware of the reasons why politicians and bureaucrats of the
Ministry of Agriculture decided to ignore the best advice in the case of
Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD). (There are also other strong reasons in
addition to those he cites, but I didn't want to complicate my account of
FMD.)
However, the fact is that the opinion of the most eminent scientists was
ignored and disaster has resulted.
I am also fully aware of the reasons why politicians and bureaucrats of the
EEC have become persuaded by a dubious IPCC report.
However, the fact is that the opinion of some of the most eminent
scientists is being ignored and we do not know what the consequences might
be if the Kyoto Protocol were carried out. At the very least it could cause
political tensions between blocs which the world has not seen since the
second world war.
The reason why I mentioned the potential super-volcano at Yellowstone is
that this is another possible danger to the human race. It has not been
taken up by politicians so far because, unlike FMD and Kyoto, they can see
no benefit in doing so. The evidence for its likelihood is strong but not
yet overwhelming. So the vulcanologists concerned continue to work quietly
gathering further evidence. However, when the evidence is more complete,
the politicians will have to take notice because scientists and populations
around the world will insist that they do so.
Keith Hudson
01:01 17/04/01 +0200, you wrote:
>Keith uses the foot&mouth epidemic to make the point that ignoring the
>advice of "eminent experts" leads to desaster, and he draws an analogy
>to Kyoto. However, both the FMD background and analogy is wrong:
>
>The gov't decision to not use vaccinations was NOT based on veterinarian
>or health considerations, but on the wish to continue animal exports.
>(Vaccinations can suppress the disease but don't establish "disease-free"
>status of the country.)
>So the situation was not one of conflicting expert advice in the same field
>(as you say is the case in the climate debate), but simply a case of
>economic considerations overruling scientific advice and precautions.
>
>Actually, the foot&mouth desaster can be used *in favour* of fast
>climate action: Desaster results if short-sighted economic greed
>is placed before scientific advice. As Dubya is doing with Kyoto...
>
>
>> I haven't been saying that we should take no action on the IPCC report
>> and the Kyoto Protocol on the basis that a worse catastrophe is likely.
>
>Why then did you mention the super-volcano at all ?
>
>Chris
>
>
>
>
___________________________________________________________________
Keith Hudson, General Editor, Calus <http://www.calus.org>
6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727;
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
