Sounds like another case for the quote from Robert Samuelson (economist)
The trouble with the global warming debate is that it
has become a moral crusade when it's really an engineering problem. The
inconvenient truth is that if we don't solve the engineering problem, we're
helpless.
john
Sorry, I meant to post the below to this thread, in response to Ken's
query, but hit the wrong button.
On the other hand, the post of Andrea and Christopher makes me wonder
how it will get interpreted
the very approach to ethics here suggests a conventional framework
in which what I raise
Ken,
I am not sure why the question of anything new arose, but I agree
with what Nathan states in the first paragraph of his earlier email.
Some additional thoughts here as my view of philosophy differs from
yours.
Novelty doesn't play the same role in philosophical inquiry as it
might in
Hi Folks,
I have often found my thoughts on the ethics issue streaming back to the
issue of the definition of GE.
In short, the difference between '*intentional' *modification of the
climate and *'unintentionaly',* yet knowingly, causing such at the second
order (global) effect level seems to be
