On Sat, 11 May 2013 13:07:08 -0600, Jonathan P Gill <[email protected]>
wrote:
In the end, I expect we will have to agree to disagree. These
conversations are unlikely to change minds already made up.
Agreed
If I am wrong, I will be called silly, but little or no harm will have
been done. I am fine with that.
I strongly disagree. Instituting mitigation policies based on the
Precautionary Principle has already put a tremendous strain on economies
and the environment. We don't need to wait 100 or 1000 or 10,000 years to
see if the models are wrong or right. People and the environment are
being harmed significantly, right now, as a result of these policies.
Climate change is inevitable, whatever the cause. By making the world
destitute, we are left without the resources to adapt to these inevitable
changes.
If the deniers are wrong, they will have a lot to atone for.
If this is a scientific debate, why the persistent use of religious
terminology?
On Sat, 11 May 2013 09:01:30 -0600, Jonathan P Gill <[email protected]>
wrote:
At some deep meta level, the problem for many is that Climate Disruption
is the ultimate nail in the coffin of unearned white male privilege.
Critical Theory? Really?
_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
[email protected]
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
