>John:
>"You need to read more or at least read better documented information than
>you must have read up to this point if this is your conclusion."
> James:
>By which you seem to mean, read things that support your case. I didn't
>claim to be a scientist; that doesn't mean that I haven't read anything!
No, by this I mean you can find information about how an airplane didn't really crash into the Pentagon just as you can find information refuting climate change but that does not make it worth reading or rigorously researched. I am suggesting if you read rigorously researched material you will in all probability come to the same conclusion that almost every climate researcher holds. The disagreements in the field of climate research aren't whether it is true or not, only cranks hold it is not. The questions are how pressing the issue is, what time frame exists, if any, for dealing with it, how to best deal with the problem, and the severity of change? Plenty of room for debate without dragging in the unsubstantiated work of a handful of individuals that is of dubious quality.
>Again, I presume 'individuals with an understanding of climate change'
>means people who agree with your understanding of climate change.
>You're as reliant as me on what real experts tell you about climate
>change. I read this literature differently from you. I think your
>certainty is political - or maybe moral - rather than scientific.
>
>Sorry if challenging a consensus spoils the party. But if you're going
>to oppose current forms of growth, you need to explain how you will
>achieve growth differently while ensuring that more people can enjoy more
>of the fruits of development, like computers and cars. If you can't do
>that, then the effect is austerity whether it's driven by Malthusian
>thinking or not.
>
>I'm happy to join your opposition to unplanned growth. But the planned
>growth that I espouse is planned in the interests of people, who happen to
>want a lot of the things that last week you were arguing they
>couldn't have. If re-thinking the direction of growth means going
>backwards, then count me out.
>
>James Greenstein
Again you're misreading me. Last week I argued no such thing. I argued that it is probable that the way our current technology is applied and the profit motivating factor in it's growth will force some unwanted changes. It is probability not certainty I speak of. We may not be able to have everyone on the planet own their own SUV but that is probable not certain. What is certain is that the resources we have will not sustain such a thing for an extended period of time. You find it better to give everyone a two car home and SUV with the resources and then find a technical fix for the unsustainability of that scenario. Hidden reserves of oil being found, nuclear powered cars, or whatever. We physically cannot take another 75 years of growth of urban spaces and the accompanying loss of farmland that we have experienced in the last 20 years. We must become much more efficient.
What I find interesting in both of the James' claims that climate change is probably not an issue is that they both believe that if it turns out they are wrong and it is an issue the same scientific processes they dismiss as unreliable as predictors of climate change are going to be called upon to save us with some sort of technical fix. If we can't predict climate change how are we supposed to remedy it?
Another thing of interest is the automobile obsession. For almost all of humankinds existence we did without them but now to do without them is austerity. Doing without refrigeration for foods and medicines is austerity. The loss of the internal combustion powered personal vehicle may be seen as a non-issue 150 years down the road if it happens. The inability to conceive of life being fulfilling without a car is weird. Did I mention I have a really fast car with a big engine that I enjoy?
John Thornton