Text 1574, 114 rader
Skriven 2006-06-03 17:05:00 av Robert E Starr JR (2020.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: <2gp382havavbkn78fqkvjmc4piubj6boh1@4ax.com>
@REPLY: <1148826538.223080.66670@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>
On Sat, 3 Jun 2006 02:17:39 +0000 (UTC), Rob Perkins
<rperkins@usa.net> wrote:

>Josh Hill wrote:
>
>>>30 years ago, people were fretting about the imminent onset of the next ice 
>>>age.
>> 
>> 
>> You know, I've heard that claim often enough, but I sure don't
>> remember it
>
>I remember it; my father talked about it, and it appeared in issues of 
>whatever the equivalent was then to "Scholastic Magazine" today.
>
>Krugman omits a lot of common doomsaying from back then. Of course, I 
>was raised where the ideas had traction: New York, Oregon, Washington. 
>Most of it, as I recall, was abandoned as a doomsayer's idea before 1982.

I remember reading a few nonsensical articles in the popular press,
which always seem to sensationalize science and doesn't understand the
caution with which scientists approach new theories and unreproduced
experimental results. Thus carefully-framed conclusions like the one
Krugman mentioned becomes "Ice Age Imminent, Scientists Say." And
general readers, who never see the journal article or a responsible
summary, pick up on that.

>I don't know if it should have sway over today's debates, but I note 
>that the same people are demanding the same things of the populace to 
>reverse or mitigate against warming, as they did against cooling.
>
>That's the suggestion of hypocrisy; that the alarmists are raising an 
>alarm in order to *shift political power*, and little else.

I've never seen any evidence of that last. It's not really a tactic I
associate with liberals, who are for the most part idealists, the very
opposite of Machiavelian business types, and so don't generally think
in those terms; if they did, the Democrats might be better at winning
elections! Rather, most say what they do because they believe it (or
occasionally because they've succumbed to social pressure), whether
it's knee jerk or based on considered analysis.

Beyond that, having come from that background, I think I can
understand the power of ideological assumption, whether by the left or
the right. We tend to trust those we know and begin with the opinions
that were bequeathed us by our parents and locality. And not enough
people take the trouble to question those beliefs, to make the
argument for the /other/ side. But I learned early on to question
Chicken Little warnings, whether from the left or the right, and
whenever I've ignored that knowledge, as when I allowed myself to be
convinced that Saddam had WMD's, I've regretted it.

That being said, by pointing to the past mistakes of a few alarmists
and suggesting that they have political motives, it seems to me that
you remove the issue from what it should be, a scientific, political,
economic, and technical one. The science tells us that global warming
is real, as is the risk of enormously costly and irreversible
consequences, even if we don't know the magnitude. And I think we have
to take things from there. My own investigation has naturally focused
on the technical end, and what I've found suggests to me that there's
a lot of unnecessary alarmism regarding the difficulty of making the
transition to alternative fuels, as there always is when any
environmental measure is proposed, and it never pans out. What is
really at stake here is vested and overly conservatives companies
fighting for their right to profit and pollute rather than the overall
welfare of the country and the world. 

>> As I understand it, that could have been said a decade ago, when there
>> was still controversy among climate scientists (as there always is
>> when something new comes along), but not today, except by the oil
>> companies and their shills. Worse, new evidence suggests that the
>> computer models have in fact underestimated the problem, and that the
>> recent increase in hurricanes is in fact related to the warming
>> process.
>
>...attributed to localized warming phenomena, (I've seen the charts) not 
>the coming global six degree shift, over the next century.

That's just changed, it seems. New evidence.

>> "Case closed. Earth's surface, atmosphere and seas are warming; ocean
>> currents are slowing; ice shelves are melting faster than projected;
>> spring is coming ever sooner; rainfall patterns are changing; North
>> American migratory birds are ranging father north; the ability of the
>> earth to self-regulate to resist warming appears to be waning. While
>> natural variation may play roles in climatic trends, overwhelming
>> evidence points to the accumulation of greenhouse gases, mainly from
>> the burning of fossil fuels, as the key."
>
>Mmm hmm. So, as they say, even if I immolate myself, as it were, and cut 
>*way* back on energy consumption... even if we all do that, we're still 
>doomed?
>
>I'm reminded of a koan I read the other day, about a man, two tigers, a 
>branch on a cliff, some mice, and a strawberry.

But then, there are degrees of doom . . .

-- 
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)