>But it is unworthy to criticise not on
>the basis of science, but of motivation. People with 'bad' motives and
>unpleasant ideas are not thereby wrong (it was Nazi scientists who made
>the link between smoking and cancer - their findings were rejected!).
>If that makes me a fool, so be it. But I still don't know what we're
>supposed to do in reaction to the contested claims about climate change.
Depends on the motivation for the research. You trust Nazi work on smoking because it is unrelated to Nazi beliefs. Do you trust Nazi research on eugenics? Of course not. Motive makes a difference, pretending otherwise is sticking your head in the sand. People who come up with unwanted results do not continue to receive corporate funds to continue that research. Is it so radically different in pharmaceutical research today? Not really. Pretending that all research is equal regardless of funding is ridiculous.
>Regardless of environmental planning, energy efficiency has tended to
>improve, while absolute energy use has grown because more people own
>energy intensive goods. Key drivers of growth in US electricity use
>have been PCs and air conditioning. Air conditioning has improved
>efficiency dramatically, but far more people have it today. Are you
>saying that they should just be hot? How do you decide who has it and
>who dosn't? I'm all for investigating new energy sources, but they're
>not available right now. So your choice is stark: keep developing and
>burning fossil fuel, or tell people that they can't have PCs or air
>conditioning.
>
>--James
I have not laid out my choice so you are putting words into my mouth. You have expressed a preference, do nothing until we have a crisis on our hands. That is what we seem to be doing and what we will in all probability do. I have no insight into what shape the crisis will take and since I will in all probability be dead when it happens I really shouldn't care. I have no children so the future fate of humankind could be considered none of my immediate business. Wow. it's going to be unfair that everyone cannot have A/C in the future if we continue down the current path. So what? Everyone does not have it now. Pointing out the obvious fact that our current rate of growth is unsustainable isn't the problem. The fact that you are even concerned with who has A/C or PC's means you do not grasp the problem; so be it. You speak as if anyone who points out that current growth is unsustainable is glad everyone can't live like a US citizen. None that I know are happy about it but it is in all probability a fact. Your desire not to see people in China do without two SUV's and home A/C because that would be "unfair" is ludicrous. The entire structure of society is unfair. I would love to see Governments do what is necessary in a manner that is fair to everyone but it ain't gonna happen. What makes you think I want to decide who gets A/C? If there aren't enough resources then your or my desires don't mean anything. You act as if they do. Somehow, if we all wish hard enough, we can make all our dreams come true. Unless people with negative ideas hit us with bad vibes that is. I don't expect to change your mind and you are very unlikely to change mine without some seriously solid research from less biased sources than I believe you will find. Think of it as a giant experiment and only one of can be correct in our hypothesis. Maybe if we get unlucky the shit will hit the fan while we are still alive and we can meet and have a beer and discuss it. In all probability it will happen after we are both dead and we will never know how despised we are by the generation that inherits the mess.
John Thornton (hater of growth and determined to prevent the spread of A/C to people in Asia)