NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/talk/environm/3381

Internet Message Format | 1992-08-25 | 4.0 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!emory!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
From: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: ages Environmental Show Trials
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:54:35 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Lines: 68

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Sill) writes:
>
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John R. Moore) writes:
>>
>>The most likely warming comes at high latitudes at night. Furthermore,
>>increased precipitation, and increased CO2 concentrations, would improve
>>agricultural productivity.
>
>More unbounded naivete.  Do we get our "money" back if these happy scenarios
>don't play as you predict?  For example, what would be the impact on farmers
>and crops of increased precipitation and CO2?  Would it really be an overall
>benefit?  Would they be able to adapt to the changes?  I don't know.  You don't
>know.  Balling doesn't know.  *Nobody* knows.

Same models *you* are using to generate hysterical claims of human extinction.
Why should we believe you and the doomsters instead of Balling. By your own
words, you don't know, in fact you say *nobody* knows. So you want to take
action based on a *suspicion*?

>>He also shows very impressively that even if you accept the global warming
>>hypothesis, there is no reason whatsoever to take immediate action, because
>>the environmental impact of taking action now rather than 5 or 10 years from
>>now is negligible, while the societal impact is substantail.
>
>The old "don't do anything until you know exactly what needs to be done"
>argument.  Which is fine if you can afford to wait that long.  Lacking any
>convincing evidence that such a wait is safe or prudent, I think we should play
>it safe.

But waiting is the prudent course. The doomsters say it won't help much
if we start changes now, changes that are guaranteed to kill people. And
the optimists say we don't need to act at all. In this case, playing it
safe means doing nothing until we are sure of what we are doing.  What if
you are wrong? Are you going to say "Sorry guys" to the people of the world
whose ecomomy you have disrupted? Are you going to say "Sorry" to the people
you killed?

>>I would like to add that any political action that damages the economy
>>kills people who are marginal to begin with (in the third world). When
>>one advocates expensive measures to limit CO2 emissions, one is advocating
>>(without realizing it) millions of deaths in the poorest populations.
>
>First of all, it's not a given that reducing CO2/methane would damage the
>economy.  But even if it was, we'd be justified on the basis that the long-term
>viability of the species is more important than a given fraction of the
>current population: i.e., which is more important: keeping the population
>maximized or ensuring the survival of the species?

Now who's engaging in flights of fantasy. You attack Balling for using the
same models as the doomsters and coming to the conclusion that warming isn't
really a bad thing, then you turn around and posture about it being all right
to kill millions of people with your intemperate actions because the
survival of the species is at stake. Even the heaviest hitters among the
doomsters don't think a possible 2 degree temperature rise threatens the
survival of humanity.

>>In the year 2040, the difference between the two cases is only .1 degrees C,
>>which is indeed negligible.
>
>God, what incredible faith you have in the current ability to predict long-term
>global change!

God, what incredible arrogance you have in casually dismissing the deaths
of millions based on the same, so you say, flimsy evidence of climate
models that you want to use to drastically restructure the economic and
energy face of the world.

Gary