From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: CO2 (was Re: ages Environmental Show Trials)
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:59:26 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
NNTP-Posting-Host: de5.ctd.ornl.gov

In article <1992Aug25.185435.3025@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>Same models *you* are using to generate hysterical claims of human extinction.
>Why should we believe you and the doomsters instead of Balling.

Because the consequences of putting your faith in Balling if he turns out to be
wrong are potentially much more severe than the consequences of believing the
"doomsters" wrong and taking reasonable precautions.

>By your own words, you don't know, in fact you say *nobody* knows. So you want
>to take action based on a *suspicion*?

We have the choice, primarily, of taking two actions:
    a) emit atmospheric CO2 at current rates
    b) reduce atmospheric CO2 emissions
Which approach is safer, given the potential danger of increased atmospheric CO2
levels?  Consider the worst-case scenario.

>But waiting is the prudent course. The doomsters say it won't help much
>if we start changes now,

Wrong!  Perhaps some "doomsters" say that, but not all, and there's certainly no
consensus.

>changes that are guaranteed to kill people.

Foo.  Life kills people.  Considering that we haven't even discussed the measures
that would be taken, I have a hard time believing your claim that they 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.

Nonsense.  The potential for catastrophe is greatest if we perturb the carbon
cycle.  Business as usual isn't, in this respect, safe.

>What if you are wrong?

Then we've spent some effort that we didn't need to and learned a few things
along the way from research and probably spun off a few new technologies.

>Are you going to say "Sorry guys" to the people of the world whose ecomomy you
>have disrupted?

No, because I refuse to apologize for doing what I thought was right at the time.
20/20 hindsight, etc.  Of course, I don't think *reasonable* measures would have
great negative impact on the economy.

>Are you going to say "Sorry" to the people you killed?

Who would I have killed?

>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,

I don't care whose models are used.  We can't pump CO2 into the atmosphere
forever without negative impact.

>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.

I did no such thing.  Gosh, it's been so long since we've "debated" I've
forgotten how poorly you comprehend the written word.  I *do* believe that, *if
it was necessary*, it would be preferrable to sacrifice a subset of the current
population for the ensured survival of the species.  I sincerely hope we never
have to make such a choice, and I'm not suggesting that we do that now to reduce
atmospheric CO2.

>Even the heaviest hitters among the doomsters don't think a possible 2 degree
>temperature rise threatens the survival of humanity.

I think you're wrong.  I don't think the risk of that is very high, but I do
think its *possible* that a sudden climate change could introduce unexpected
catastrophic results.  And I certainly think such unexpected catastrophies are
more likely when humans meddle with things than when they don't.  My basis for
this belief comes from the fact that, in the millions of years prior to
substantial environmental impact from unnatural causes, such catastrophes didn't
happen.  Plus, throughout my life I've seen numerous cases of human blundering
causing unexpected results in smaller, much better understood systems.

>>>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.

I wish you'd explain these "millions of deaths" you so casually toss around.  I
also wish you'd explain what these supposed deaths have to do with having faith
in climate predictions 50 years into the future.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)	   For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham