>Enzo Michelangeli wrote:
>
>>For a second opinion, see:
>>
>>http://www.reason.org/climatefaqs.html
>
>Cato, Reason, such lovely company the anti-warmers keep.
And wait from my future quotes from F.A. Hayek ;-)
>I loved this passage from the FAQs (drawn from risk/reward theorist Aaron
>Wildavsky:
>
>>What's apparent in this anticipation / resilience framework is that it is
>>not our knowledge, but our uncertainties which most strongly indicate the
>>choice of pathway. This is because: 1) the conditions needed to assure a
>>reasonable chance of success for anticipatory actions are quite stringent;
>>2) there are more ways to get things wrong than to get them right; and 3)
>>mistakes leave us less well prepared to deal with other current or future
>>problems.
>>
>>RPPI's research, and that of many other analysts, indicates that given our
>>current state of knowledge, we are not in a position to take anticipatory
>>action that has a good chance of producing a net increase in our safety,
>>or that of our children, or grandchildren. More research is clearly needed
>>to bring levels of uncertainty down far enough to make for reliable
>>decisionmaking.
>
>Putting this as carefully as possible, there's considerable, if not
>clinching, evidence of a climate change that could be absolutely disastrous
>for human life. But since we can't be sure, it's best to do nothing. How
>reasonable.
Where do you read that?? The only fact that emerges from that FAQ is that much larger swings in the past have not substantially damaged life on the planet; that, as natural events have effects orders of magnitude larger than human-induced ones, taking action on the latter is quite irrelevant; and that it could well be counterproductive too.
Enzo