[Vision2020] Amazonian Deforestation and Global Warming:Was:Ed theViking, Greenland, and Global Warming

[Ted Moffett]

Roger wrote:

  You have presented a lot of information as to the potential problem. What
> are your solutions.


To be blunt, I don't realistically think humanity will adopt solutions
quickly enough to stop catastrophic global warming.  As Eugene Linden wrote
on global warming, it is a "libertarian nightmare" given the solutions that
appear necessary to substantively address the problem: taxes, government
regulation of industry, strict international treaties, major alterations in
energy intensive lifestyles, etc.  Your view on this issue is a very common
one, and good evidence to support the claim that human induced global
warming will not be aggressively addressed till it is too late.  Then the
measures that will be necessary to mitigate even more severe global warming
will make the controls now suggested to solve the problem seem mild.  In
short, we either make substantive changes now to address global warming,
changes that are not going to make everyone happy or be possible with a
totally "free market" approach, or draconian measures will eventually
be enforced.

I have posted over and over no doubt to the annoyance of some what solutions
are required to address global warming, and the compelling scientific
evidence human contributions are the primary cause.  You can read these
posts if you wish, given at this time I don't feel like repeating myself.

There were public talks and speeches given in Moscow in recent months on the
topic of global warming, so perhaps someone who attended these events can
post about the solutions that were discussed.

>From Eugene Linden's web site:

http://www.eugenelinden.com/news1085.html

But the scientists have sorted it out, and they've done so despite being
natural contrarians. That's why the consensus that humans are affecting
climate is so extraordinary. If the public realized the breadth and depth of
this consensus, climate change would get the consideration it deserves.

The naysayers know this, and they jump on any report that underscores the
rare scientific unanimity on the issue. Naomi Oreskes of the University of
San Diego felt this heat when she published a study in Science. Her simple
thought was that if rank and file scientists did not share the consensus of
the leaders of major scientific organizations, dissents would have shown up
in the peer-reviewed literature. Critics castigated her on the internet, on
television and on the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal, but there has
been no credible challenge to what she actually said in her article. Just
recently, the sports psychologist who's unpublished study was the basis for
the naysayer attack on Oreskes, backed off from his assertions.
--------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070404/ec1eeb0a/attachment.html