On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 10:40 PM, jdannan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> john fernbach wrote:
>
> I don't think so. But the issue only really becomes important when we
> get close to a complete destruction of mankind (a *real* catastrophe,
> not just a problem), so it probably doesn't make a significant
> difference when we are only talking of +-10% changes, and so may be
> ignored in many analyses.
>
> James
I get the sense that you are being rather too academic here, James. There
are real and urgent problems to grapple with.
Even if one accepts your argument, they don't go away. In the terms you
describe, suppose there are five 10% problems we are neglecting on the above
basis. Or fifty of them. How do they interact? I think that is actually a
good model of what we are up against. It's not the 3 C, its the twenty top
consequences of it or so, along with the thirty other 10% items we are
neglecting.
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
