----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew Fildes <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Robert wrote:
>> The president isn't responsible for global warming....
> No, but it would be nice if you could elect and accept someone
> who is prepared to lead.
You really didn't expect to get an argument out of me there, did you?
I could not agree more. However, one cannot lead where others will not
follow. It's like trying to push a length of rope. Recall my lesson ... in the
US, Congress passes the laws. We could use some Congressional persons
who are prepared to lead as well, instead of the collection of self-serving,
party gamester politicians that we have elected and continue to elect.
As to "prepared to lead," do you mean prepared as in being eloquent and
charismatic, but with dubious and undemonstrated leadership qualities, or
as in prepared and having proven leadership qualities, but being as eloquent
and charismatic as a prune? ;o) Those would appear to be our next options.
>
> ... the division within the atmospheric scientist community is between
> 'certain' and 'cautiously convinced'. Those who are raising questions (as
> they should) tend to be other kinds of scientist who are not necessarily
> more informed about the topic than any intelligent individual, apart from
> their understanding of scientific method.
This casually discounts a large number of atmospheric scientists who are
raising legitimate questions about whether the warming phenomenon is due
to manmade causes, cyclical variations or some other factor(s). We might
name them the "cautiously unconvinced" or the "as certain as anyone can
be that it isn't caused by what they are claiming" community. A few years
ago (25-30?) many of these same scientists were warning of a coming ice
age. To my knowledge, none of those experts ever admitted publicly to
being mistaken, they simply stopped talking about it ... a common tactic
among scientists having a favorite theory disproved.
Btw ... I seem to recall reading somewhere that the Antarctic ice cap
actually increased this past season. It seems that the polar bears aren't quite
as endangered as we were led to believe.
> If we do something, we improve air quality and reduce resource consumption.
> Win.
Ah, who in their right mind would question the desirability of improving air
quality and reducing resource consumption? But why not do it because it's the
right and prudent thing to do rather than because we are being told that the
sky
is falling ... uh ... because the ozone layer is being depleted and we think
that
we might be contributing to global warming?
> And there are other non-expert commentators, intelligent or otherwise. As
> Gore so neatly pointed out, it's the journalists who are divided.
Ah yes, Gore. I seem to have forgotten where he obtained his expertise as an
atmospheric scientist. How long has he been studying atmospheric phenomena?
> And Bush would prefer to listen to Michael Crichton of course.
Silly me. I thought that President Bush might have access to a few qualified
atmospheric scientists as well. But, come to think of it, Crichton's
credentials
might be as sound as Gore's. How long had Gore studied global warming
before he wrote his book and created his film? We can't attribute atmospheric
expertise to Gore just because he wrote a book and collaborated on a film
about it. I think Crichton does that kind of thing too; doesn't he? ;ob
>
> I prefer a Pascal's Wager approach - if global warming is an erroneous
> concept or not the monster that we fear, then so what?
Is that a subjective or an objective probability wager? With the uncertainty of
the greenhouse theory, it would have to be subjective (believed). If objective
(proven), it should drive men all the harder to reduce emissions. The unhealthy
effects of manmade pollutants is a proven fact, therefore an objective wager to
curb them seems called for. We don't want anyone, present or future, to have
to live with the consequences of doing less.
For one alternative theory of the cause of global warming phenomena, see:
<http://www.physorg.com/news11710.html>
> On the other hand, if it IS what we fear and we do nothing, our
> children and their children have some serious social adjustment ahead.
> Lose.
> I'll leave you to work out the other two positions.
>
No thanks. ;o) I might add, however, that our current moral and ethical
"climate" may in the future require more serious social adjustments by our
children and their children than global warming. Perhaps Al Gore should
write a book and do a film about that.
That's my opinion. YMMV. ;o)
Robert
P.S. I warned everyone that I was feeling curmudgeonly. ;o)
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|