Global Warming

[Paul Wight]

I read with interest the discussion over wether human activity is the cause
of the current round of increased
temperatures, and it seemed to me to be one of the clearest indicators of
how much the issue has turned into
one of morality rather than of the technical or scientific questions to be
answered.
Do humans have an effect on the climate?
Do cows?  Do trees? Does plankton?
Of course.  Can these effects really be catagorised by "good" and "bad" in
themselves?
It seems to me that the concerns over our effect on the climate have become
a moral critique of human beings, and "modern life".

The chances of having a proper discussion of how these things might
or might not) effect us, both the good and the bad, are very much
reduced by introducing this question of our worthyness.

Paul

Kenneth Mack, (and others) wrote:


>
> Mack <kmack at dimensional.com> writes
>
> >I'm not claiming that there aren't politics being played. I'm sure there
> >are. What cannot be said is that global warming theory is false.
> Sorry, the
> >physics are against you. The REAL scientific question is how does one add
> >greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere without affecting the
> radiative balance
> >of the earth?
>
> No-one I'm aware of denies climate change, the issue is whether climate
> change is due to industrial emissions, which seems far from
> demonstrated, no matter how many times you repeat it. That you hold it
> as an article of faith does not mean a great deal to me.

I do not hold it as an article of faith. I hold it as an article of science.
If you do not understand how the greenhouse effect works and the role of
greenhouse gasses (GHGs) please let me know, maybe we can go through the
details.

Kenneth Mack
>
>
> --
> James Heartfield
>