On May 31, 5:13 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Maybe he's being a little provocative by using the word "arrogant",
> and by not saying something about why people believe that stasis is
> better than change, but fundamentally I think he's making a valuable
> point. Science and scientists should tell us about facts, and as an
> aside about their personal opinions and values, but in a democratic
> society it is not scientists who should decide for the rest of us
> what's worth having and what's not worth having.
Assuming a changed climate could well be better, as Griffin implcitly
does, is far more dangerously arrogant than saying we should trying
and limit climate change. We *know* we can cope with our old climate
but we don't know how we'll cope with a changed one.
I think the precautionary principle is valuable here. It may be
possible that global warming can be weathered without too much
difficulty but I'm not sure I want to find out via an uncontrolled
experiment on our only habitable planet!
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
