Hi Ed,
At 16:52 14/07/01 -0400, you wrote:
<<<<
I've read a number of things recently that suggest climate changes in the
past have not been gradual, but sudden and catastrophic, with very major
changes in the habitability of ecosystems occurring in a very short period,
like a few decades.
I've done a lot of travel in the Canadian Arctic, winter and summer, during
the past forty years. This February, on a trip to Iqaluit, I saw an
enormous open lead of water just south of Baffin Island. I had never seen
anything quite like it.
We need to take climate change seriously. It's here.
>>>>
I don't doubt your observations. As for me I don't have to travel to the
Arctic to suspect that climate changes are taking place. Over the last few
years my garden has supplied sufficient evidence. The fish in my garden fed
all through the winter -- something that hasn't happened before. Blossom is
appearing and birds are nesting earlier then usual and we are seeing exotic
species of birds and butterflies that haven't appeared before.
Once again, though:
1. There are serious discrepancies in observations so far and, thus,
serious differences of opinion between highly qualified climatologists.
Almost every month something new, and major, is discovered about the global
climate that changes the overall understanding of the climate. Only last
month, for example, a major oscillation in north Atlantic wind patterns was
discovered. This alone accounts for quite significiant temperature changes
in western Europe. We need a lot more data on which scientists can agree
before accurate modelling can be done and strategy decided upon;
2. If the "catastrophists" are correct, then wide scale action will have to
be taken. The Kyoto proposals will only delay global warming (if the
forecasts are correct) and draconian measures would have to be instituted
all over the world, extending to far more than merely trading CO2
emissions. In such a situation, and in contrast to my normal mode of
discussion, it would be entirely appropriate for highly centralised
decisions to be taken.
You might be surprised to know that I think that the catastrophists are
probably right. But it is folly to proceed with major economic dislocations
(for that is what is involved in the Kyoto proposals) until we know more
accurately what is happening. I am merely arguing for a delay until the
climatologists are in agreement. Such is the research effort going on now
that we will be immensely more knowledgeable in two or three years than now.
Indeed -- here is the big irony -- if substantial man-made global warming
is taking place and there is the danger of runaway climatic disequibria
then, because American science is far and away superior to any other
country, the action that would have to be taken would be American-led tout
court. America would impose draconian restrictions on economic activity on
itself and on the rest of the world. In my mind, there would be little
doubt about this. Then the Internet would be full of mailing lists
condemning American tyranny even though the action may be saving the world.
Keith Hudson
___________________________________________________________________
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]
________________________________________________________________________
