Hi Keith et al,
At 11:41 PM 7/14/2001 Saturday , you wrote:
>Hi Dennis,
>
>I totally agree with you that, in principle, we should ameliorate harmful
>natural changes. But only if, and only if, we could rely on the evidence,
>knew precisely what to do and could devise a successful strategy.
>
Given the uncertainty of the models, the prudent thing to do is less
of whatever we are doing that that is upsetting the "natural" changes.
>No one denies that climate change is taking place in many parts of the
>world. In some places it is getting warmer; in others it is getting colder.
>Most climatologists believe that the world as a whole is getting warmer; a
>minority -- though including some of the most eminent -- believe that
>there is insufficient evidence yet. However, all climatologists now believe
>that climate changes, even the onset of major events like Ice Ages, can
>take place very much more rapidly than was believed until recently.
>
Even if true, that does not justify burning additional fossil fuel.
>We can't rely on the evidence yet. Some scientists believe that CO2
>analyses of ice cores are contaminated by the drilling oil used. There are
>serious discrepancies between temperatures measured by satellites and those
>by ground stations. Historic records of ground stations are not compatible
>because most ground stations that used to be situated in the countryside
>are now surrounded by urban sprawl with much higher ambient temperatures.
>Far too little is known about the absorption/release of CO2 by different
>sorts of ground cover (rain forest, agriculture, coniferous forest, etc)
>and, most importantly, by marine life in the oceans. Also, far too little
>is known of the reflectivity of cloud cover in reflecting heat to outer space.
>
>Long term computer forecasts of climate change are notoriously sensitive to
>wrong inputs. The slightest errors in basic premises can have exponential
>effects.
>
All the more reason not to cause further upsets into the climate equation.
>We can afford to wait a little longer. Research into all the areas of
>ambiguous measurement is being accelerated. What is called "The
>Precautionary Principle" is a sound doctrine for many problems but is
>little more than fashionable clamour at this stage as regards the climate.
>In two or three years I have little doubt that the problem -- if it is a
>problem -- will be known much more precisely and computer forecasts will be
>that much more accurate.
>
>
>Keith Hudson
>
The only ones to benefit from failing to reduce the rate at which
we address the climate issue are the oil companies and the auto
industry. Given their economic clout and their ability to influence
seats of power, it is in the interest of all the rest of us to do
everything we can do to support the non-CO2 producing industries.
There is simply nothing that can be done that will change the oil
industry's mind, and by extension, yours.
dennis paull
