On 17/04/2008, Michael Tobis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> well, I for one am trying to do exactly such things, but it isn't
> easy. It's possible that in practice, any sensible adaptation in
> advance of the actual change is limited in scope.
This suggests a mind-set of "adaptation" as being something that you
only do in response to some sort of "change". Do you think that is
reasonable, given the abundant evidence that we are increasing output
irrespective of climate change? That is, by any reasonable measure of
adaptation, we are better adapted to the climate now than we were 30
years ago.
To put it another way, how do you distinguish adapting to *climate
change* from adapting to *climate*?
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
