I wish people would distinguish between description and prescription.
Arguments that something is or isn't likely to happen barring major
change do not indicate whether or not we should try to make the
relevant change.
I see this confusion on both sides. John McCarthy used to argue that
the world would do next to nothing about anthropogenic climate change
until major costs are incurred (with which I sadly agreed), but then
somehow concluded that we should table the discussion until that time
(with which I vehemently disagreed). I don't follow the reasoning when
McCarthy makes it and I don't follow it when Jim (sort of) makes it
either.
Happy 4th, y'all!
mt
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
