Thankyou Kirk, that's just what we needed. That gives us a clear comparison between sincere doubt and mere denial. There's more to denial (or less), or surely the deniers would also see the precautionary principle as proper and prudent, as you do. But I've never seen them doing that - instead they usually want their "doubts" to serve as a reason (?) to stop all further investigation, which defies all logic. The debating style, so to speak, is usually pretty much the same. They claim to invite open discussion but what you get is a choice between capitulation and revilement. If you reject that then they usually say you're attacking them for their views. It's either benighted or less than forthright, IMO. Whatever, it's not sincere doubt. Questioners, doubters, sceptics, are vital to crucial issues such as these, deniers - naysayers - contribute nothing but confusion and discord. Lomborg is a good example - "The Sceptical Environmentalist" indeed. He's not a sceptic, he's a spin merchant.
Well, I've said it before, I'm still a doubter, I think you have to be, the court's still out - in fact the jury hasn't even left the room yet, the case is still being presented, with quite some distance to go. I do accept ozone layer damage and CFC's role, though I'm sure there's more to come. I also accept climate change, and human cause, I'm persuaded by the case for global warming but not yet convinced. There's certainly global warming but it's not yet certain what the outcome will be - probably a lot more global warming. What I'm completely convinced by is the case for the precautionary principle, now long overdue, IMO. Should have been 10 years ago, at least. The Kyoto Protocol is better than nothing, but it certainly isn't due precaution. It's a start. Regards Keith >It appears that most public information is of one camp or the other. The >Spectator article is a classic example of spin and misinformation. > >Lest anyone wish to now place me firmly in the other camp let me go on >record as stating it is my considered opinion that the CFC ban was political >and made lots of bucks for duPont (Bronfman) and Imperial Chemical. It also >killed lots of 3rd worlders who could not afford to replace equipment >instead of much less expensive repairs and thus lost refrigeration >facilities for vaccine and other products let alone foodstuffs. > >HOWEVER!!! The ban on CFC products was proper and prudent. If you have >doubt -- and you have an alternative-- you should employ the alternative. >The lost facilities in the 3rd world should have been part of the cost of >changeover. Not nice to take money from the poor and then declare their >investment obsolete. > >Likewise, in the absence of definitive CO2 proof, why should we take the >risk? We should be concentrating on solar thermal, wind, tidal, wave and >what have you. Especially we should be concentrating on distributed >generation. Cogeneration can double efficiency of installations yet we act >as though we are unaware of it. Biodiesel cogeneration is a natural for a >farm. > >Nukes are a big money maker for some few people. Even if benign--and they >are far from it-- they are socially inferior because they are part of the >centralised paradigm of big business. As for the nuke data it is too good. I >think they claim 600 reactor years of operation and not one fatality. In the >real world someone would have slipped on a wet spot in the hall or stepped >on a dropped pencil and cracked their skull by now. Statistics that seem too >good to be true usually are. > >Kirk > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Christopher Witmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 6:37 AM >To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [biofuel] FWIW: Spectator (UK) Article "Prepare for the Big >Chill" > > >Cover story from The Spectator: >Prepare for the big chill >"A new ice age is due now, says Andrew Kenny, but you won't hear it from >the Greens, who like to play on Western guilt about consumerism to make >us believe in global warming" >http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old§ion=current&issue=2002 >-06-22&id=1977 > >It seems like too long an article to reasonably request point-by-point >interaction, but I'd like to hear people's opinions on 1) what are the >article's weakest points, and 2) if any, what are the article's >redeeming or strongest points (in other words, do you feel the author >has any valid points?) > >-- Chris Witmer >Tokyo ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
