----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Harney" <[email protected]>
To: "Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: Freeman Dyson on climate
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Rob wrote:
Worth a read. Dyson is a Global Warming skeptic with an interesting take
on the subject.
A GW skeptic or an AGW skeptic? It would be hard to deny GW from the
past 400 years with data.
Alberto Monteiro
Let me attempt to play Dyson here.<G>
Based on what I read in the article, I would say that he doesn't dispute
global warming. What he does dispute is the global impact that it would
have.
I can understand people saying "we need more data", what I can't
understand is that they insist we keep things status quo until we have
conclusive data when the current
"disputed"
data we have predicts multiple global catastrophes. With stakes that high,
it makes no sense to say that we should err against the side of caution.
Dyson's first point in simple terms is that the data you speak of is
computer models, and computer models are simply that....models. They are not
beasts of a factual nature. They are projections within which some of the
criteria are adjustable, giving rise to best case scenarios or worst case
scenarios. Basing your actions and spending large portions of your wealth
when the potential for inaccuracy is high is foolish. (Dan addressed a
similar situation with Sagan and Nuclear Winter just a few days ago)
Dyson's next point is that the developing nations burning of coal is a good
thing, a very good thing. The improvements in the quality of life in China
will save more lives than will be lost due to global warming in a couple of
generations.
Another point is that this is a fairly cool period in the history of earth
and that most of the evolution of life occurred in warmer periods with
higher levels of CO2. Global warming is not global but local with cool areas
getting warmer but warmer areas not getting warmer.
It reminds me of the chicken gun episode of Mythbusters where Adam, who is
the one usually doing foolish things and getting hurt, got angry at Jamie
for wanting to make a potentially unsafe pressure tank. Sure, there is a
chance that nothing catastrophic will happen, but if something
catastrophic does happen, people are going to die. Erring against caution
in such a situation is just a big middle finger to all those people who
are potentially in harms way. Its like saying "We are willing to risk
your lives and the lives of your family and friends to maintain our way of
living."
One of Dyson's main points is that global warming tends to get exaggerated.
People of our generation or even the next one are extremely unlikely to die
from the effects of global warming. Even a few generations down the road it
is still unlikely unless they suddenly become very stupid. Who is going to
stand still while the water rises over your head? People will simply adjust
and they will have many years to do so. There won't be any sudden changes,
it will all be very gradual and there will be a good number of benefits that
come with a warmer climate.
Like more food to eat for instance.
*******
OK, I'm finished playing Dyson. Someone else take a turn.<G>
xponent
Ignored Synergies Maru
rob
_______________________________________________
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
