Text 1622, 122 rader
Skriven 2006-06-03 22:52:00 av Robert E Starr JR (2068.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Josh Hill to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <qre4825pqs478kqrhnmcvjija0ucdfn49m@4ax.com>
@REPLY: <xWQfg.106166$dW3.22735@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>
On Sat, 3 Jun 2006 19:59:38 +0000 (UTC), "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:5hj382tj71ns55nm27i16d4e41ci8vv50i@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 3 Jun 2006 04:51:04 +0000 (UTC), "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>
>>>I was watching something on television a few weeks ago that suggested that
>>>global warming might actually recreate the conditions that lead to the
>>>mini ice age again.
>>>
>>>Is this view to be discounted out of hand because it doresn't support
>>>the official view that the oceans will rise and swallow the coasts, etc?
>>
>> There is no "official" view. What there is is a scientific consensus
>> that global warming is real, that it is caused by us, and that it will
>> have significant consequences. The precise form of those consequences
>> and the rate at which they will occur is not yet known, but it
>> includes some scenarios in which local cooling occurs, e.g., a
>> reversal of the Gulf Stream could cause Europe to enter another ice
>> age.
>
>Not long ago it was presented as "fact" that the oceans would rise  many 
>feet (I forget how many) in the next 90 years... probably less.

Presented by whom? Scientists, or the popular press? The allegations
I've seen, even in the press, have always expressed the specifics as a
matter of projections and probabilities. I can't imagine a scientist
saying anything else, unless speaking /very/ informally.

>I think part of the problem is that what is fact is often intermixed with 
>speculation that is lumped together as fact.  If you challenge the 
>speculation,
>some treat it as challenging the whole premise.
>
>To be clear, I can accept that GW has data to support its reality and that 
>data also supports the contention that at *in part* it is caused by us.  Can 
>you say it has been proven to be completely our fault? I don't think so, and 
>yet if you re-read what you wrote it certainly comes across that way. 
>That's fine...it doesn't discount the premise, but challenging the 
>conclusion is fair.

No, if you're going to be technical about it, some of what's happened
may be natural fluctuations. For that matter, it's equally likely that
we'd be in a cooling period if it weren't for the human contribution.
But I think that's pretty obvious. 

>When some people say warming and another say mini ice age, it's not unfair 
>for some people to ask for more concrete data.
>
>Ok, we don't know how much and we don't know how bad.  Can we all agree on 
>that without stepping on anyone's beliefs?

The problem is that that's not accurate. Sure, we don't know how bad.
But that's like saying that a doctor doesn't know how bad a case of
smallpox will be when he sees the first pustule. He doesn't,
precisely: the patient may live or die, and it takes some time before
he can judge the severity of the case. But he does know that it will
be a dangerous, difficult illness.

And that's where we stand with global warming. We don't know how bad
it will be or what it's effects will be, but we know it will be bad
and we know it will have effects and we know that it will for all
intents and purposes be irreversible and we know that it will continue
to get worse long /after/ the greenhouse gases have been injected into
the atmosphere.

>We don't need to to know how bad it will be to ask ourselves "What can and 
>what should we do?"
>
>Some people choose to believe the worst case scenerio, others don't.  When 
>one plans for disaster, you usually don't assume the best case, and you may 
>or may not be able to afford planning for the worst case.  That's when more 
>data is helpful.  One way or another it's reasonable to look at the existing 
>evidence and take steps to minimize the impact wherever feasible.  There are 
>limits of course; we aren't going to give up technology and live in grass 
>huts.   Quite the contrary, we're going to look at technology to save us.

There's only one house in the world, and no possibility of building
another, and you live in it.

You have a cow that will kick over your lantern.

When the cow kicks over the lantern, it may burn down the barn before
you discover and extinguish it, or the barn and the living room, or
the entire house. You can't and don't know.

Do you leave the lantern where it is in the hopes that it merely burns
down the barn, or do you make the small effort to move it someplace a
bit less convenient but safer?

We will already have to face the consequences of some degree of
man-made warming, and we can't eliminate greenhouse emissions
overnight without returning to the stone age. These are givens. But
the situation is very far form that, because we've done virtually
nothing -- nada -- zilch, and because we have ample resources to
follow a responsible course. There's no way in fucking hell that we
would suffer if we didn't drive light trucks to the office or replaced
our lightbulbs with compact fluorescents or replaced gasoline with
cellulosic ethanol or coal-fired power plants with wind. If we were
eking out an existence I would understand, but our failure to
countenance even the slightest "sacrifices" seems to me nothing short
of grotesque.

-- 
Josh

"I'm not going to play like I've been a person who's spent hours involved with
foreign policy.
I am who I am." - George W. Bush
                                                                        
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)