> From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I think it's foolish for us to consume more energy than
> the sun can deliver and whatever percentage of that we can reasonably
> capture each day.
That's certainly the case today! And it ain't gonna last.
So don't worry about the "climate fear-mongers," be happy! It's one
of those well-known-but-unspoken truths that reducing atmospheric
carbon emissions is going to require reducing energy consumption.
It's true that correlation is not causation, and there is no way to
"prove" that human carbon emissions are heating up the earth. But if
it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, sometimes it's best to
just treat it like a duck.
First, there's the "precautionary principle." It says that if the
consequences of an action (or inaction) are terrible enough, you
shouldn't have to demand proof in order to take prudent measures. The
Stern report -- made by an officer of the staid World Bank, not some
wild-eyed, hair-shirt environmentalist -- says that taking action
against global warming will cost a tiny fraction of what global
warming itself will cost. Thus, the precautionary principle: spend a
bit to stabilize carbon now, rather than run the *risk* of something
really, really bad happening. This is why we buy insurance.
Then, there's "Occam's razor," which says that given a bunch of
possible causes for something, the simplest is the most likely.
Variable solar output, global dimming, cosmic rays -- many things are
postulated by anthropogenic climate change deniers, but they all
require some leap of faith beyond what is being measured and
correlated by a near-consensus of atmospheric scientists.
To link this with the health thread: if you buy insurance, you should
be for reducing atmospheric carbon emissions, and for the same
reasons. You don't have to absolutely believe you could get cancer to
want to have your medical bills paid, and you don't have to
absolutely believe humans are causing climate change to want to avoid
the possibility.
As to the argument that climate change talk is all driven by grant
money... I really don't know what to say. It's shameful, all those
scientists with multi-million-dollar houses and driving Porches and
dining at fancy restaurants -- oh wait -- those are oil company
executives... :-)
I swear the following sig came up totally at random:
:::: The better you live, the more oil you use. -- Esso
advertisement, New Yorker, 1949 ::::
:::: Jan Steinman <htp://www.VeggieVanGogh.com> ::::
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|