Michael Tobis wrote:
> Thing one: your choice of Bangladesh is telling. Where exactly do you
> expect half the population of Bangladesh to go? The other half of
> Bangladesh? Elsewhere?
Where do you imagine half of Bangladesh's population went over the last
30 years, over which time the total population doubled?
> Thing two: It is true that more success at adaptation reduces the
> urgency of mitigation but it in no way removes its necessity. The
> atmospheric composition must and will eventually restabilize.
Actually, it may go up and down substantially. Your point about the
long-run growth rate being zero is true but trite: the long-run growth
rate being zero tells us nothing whatsoever about any century-scale (or
longer) changes, either actual or desirable.
> Whether
> civilization is merely inconvenienced or is decimated or is
> obliterated in the process is the moral question.
I can only repeat the advice I gave to someone last night at a party,
who was wondering how concerned he should be about climate change:
Don't believe everything you read in the Independent. In fact, don't
believe _anything_ there unless it is corroborated elsewhere.
FWIW, the two other climate scientists present concurred.
James
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
