Hi Keith et al,
You are quite wrong, Keith. Just because some effect is natural
does NOT mean that nothing can be done about it. I don't know
how you can make such an assumption.
That is like saying that, since smallpox is natural, we can't make
a vaccine to combat it.
Yes, the earth's weather is non-linear. No doubt about it.
Yes, there is a chance that major changes in the weather could
be brought on by a relatively small change in the composition
of the atmosphere. A chance, I said, not necessarily a liklihood.
What are we prepared to do to mitigate that possibility, that risk?
Yes, we should do further research. But, yes, we should do whatever
we can to reduce that risk that is commensurate with the liklihood
of the risk factor coming to pass. And we should further adjust
our actions as new information becomes available.
dennis paull
Los Altos, CA, USA
At 12:23 PM 7/14/2001 Saturday , you wrote:
>At 09:53 14/07/01 -0700, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>>I think this is the best counter to Bush's irremediably self-interested know
>>nothing position on Global Warming.
>>
>>It is not that we don't know enough therefore we should do nothing thus
>>allowing things to change, rather it is that we don't know enough therefore
>>we should not be allowing potentially drastic changes to occur in what we
>>don't know enough about.
>
>This entirely misses the point.
>
>If the present climate change is natural then there's absolutely nothing
>that can be done about it. Global warming could get far worse or it could
>swing the other way. (There's strong evidence, for example, that the next
>Ice Age could start any decade soon.)
>
>If the present changes are man-made (against an otherwise stable backdrop),
>then the Kyoto proposals would come nowhere near correcting the CO2 cause.
>Nowhere near. Far more drastic action would be required that would have to
>totally replace the fossil-fuel derived productive processes of the whole
>world. It would be akin to a new type of Dark Ages. Waiting another year or
>two, while research is accelerating into important areas (reflectivity of
>cloud cover, and absorption of COs by marine life) won't do any great harm
>and will give precise parameters on which a possible strategy could be
>constructed. (And which, without doubt, the whole world would adopt without
>any further argument.)
>
>Keith Hudson
>
