Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: population growth & physics ed

On Tue, 16 Jul 1996 12:42:03 -0500 Rick & Bea Tarara said:
Why Mr. Burke did 'sell' the program to PBS, I feel it unfair to
suggest he somehow could profit from scaring people about global
warming. Such an attitude is beyond cynical--IMO.

It wouldn't be the first time this has been done.
I guess nuclear winter is a classic example.
As I understand it some prominent scientists made up some data to support
their position, because they thought that's how things should work.
I guess they thought the end justified the means.
If being skeptical is "beyond cynical" what does that make the folks who
perpetute false science?

To be honest, I don't trust anybody anymore unless they supply actual data
which has been independently verified.
likely benefit to be gained. That is the rational approach in my
view.
One assumes risk every moment of one's life. The key to living well
is
to be able to evaluate such risks. Thus an asthmatic might think it
unwise to climb Everest, but an experienced mountaineer might deem
it
unthinkable not to try. They have different assessments of the
relative
magnitudes of risk and benefit. Following Burke's suggestion both
would
be unwise to get out of bed, for the risk in doing so is
nonnegligible.

"Virtually everyone agrees" is a gross misstatement of fact. I
don't,
for example, but I guess that means I'm not virtuous, er, virtual. I
do
agree that the effect of 100-fold increase in atmospheric CO2 would
likely heat up the Earth, but some experts who have examined the
question are unsure of the *sign* of the temperature change which
might
be caused by a small increase. Do they, too, lack virtue?

Burke is an entertainer. What he does, he does to sell. Let's not go
overboard because he says the ship is sinking. He may also be
selling
liferafts.

We insure ourselves from lots
of other hazards so why not take some out some insurance concerning
global warming by cutting back on green-house emissions as soon as
possible.

I believe the dictum is "Think globally, act locally". Will you be
giving up your automobile? Giving up using electrical energy? Giving
up what your ancestors and fellow citizens have worked so long and
so hard to achieve for you?

I don't carry flood or earthquake insurance; I judge them not to be
worth the price. That's all it is, a value judgement. The cost of
reducing CO2 emissions would be immense. I want to see a prospect of
comparably immense benefit resulting from doing so. Insurance works
by compensating a small number of injured parties by pooling the
contributions of a much larger number of luckier folk. Insurance is
scarcely an appropriate metaphor for this, since we are all in the
same boat. The US did not sign on to the Rio accord on reduction of
CO2 emissions. Bush's scentific advisors told him that the risk was
not yet clear, or at least clear enough to justify draconian
measures.
Other nations signed, but last I heard that was all show; they have
not done anything hard yet. Of course Bush should have signed; it
would have helped his campaign, and as you see he paid the price of
being honest.

The film describes a Dutch plan from around 1989 that could
be a model for doing so. Other salient points of the film describe
how the dilution of salt in the North Atlantic (by the escape of an
ice age lake in Canada) caused an 8-10 degree drop in the space of
only 100 years--point being that very large temperature swings CAN
happen very quickly. It is the effects of the oceans vis-a-vis
global
temperatures that are not well understood, but under SOME models
can
lead to cascading effects that could cause very rapid increases in
temperature. Once again a central point here is that reducing
carbon
emissions NOW can't hurt but not doing so COULD be disasterous!

Chicken Little is my guiding parable here, I'm afraid. I think you
overdramatize given the present state of our knowledge.

Leigh