> How should we narrow it down in the absence of perfect information?
Surely the amount of cost/inconvenience/lifestyle change etc..
involved has some bearing on whether we consider 0.1C the right target
or 6C. If all that was required was for the one big evil oil company
to get a patent on GHG free oil, and then that was the end of the
story and people could get on with their lives, I'd guess 0.1C and a
near immediate and complete ban on GHG's would have been agreed on 20
years ago without Hansen having to even bother showing up at that
congressional hearing in 1988.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
