"Does it make any sense to speak about warming of the Earth when we see it
in the context of the evolution of our planet over hundreds of millions of
years? Every child is taught at school about temperature variations, about the
ice ages, about the much warmer climate in the Middle Ages. All of us have
noticed that even during our life-time temperature changes occur (in both
directions)."
Finally common sense is speaking.
The issue of global warming is more about social than natural sciences and
more about man and his freedom than about tenths of a degree Celsius changes in
average global temperature.As a witness to today’s worldwide debate on climate change, I suggest the following:
■Small climate changes do not demand far-reaching restrictive measures
■Any suppression of freedom and democracy should be avoided
■Instead of organising people from above, let us allow everyone to live as he wants
■Let us resist the politicisation of science and oppose the term “scientific consensus”, which is always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent majority
■Instead of speaking about “the environment”, let us be attentive to it in our personal behaviour
■Let us be humble but confident in the spontaneous evolution of human society. Let us trust its rationality and not try to slow it down or divert it in any direction
■Let us not scare ourselves with catastrophic forecasts, or use them to defend and promote irrational interventions in human lives.
1 comment:
"Small climate changes do not demand far-reaching restrictive measures" - Small changes in climate can have a big effect on human existence, regardless of whether you believe what causes them. If scientists can measure climate change, and demonstrate its effects on nature and man, we need to start thinking about its implications. And yes, that's true no matter whether it's getting colder or warmer.
"Any suppression of freedom and democracy should be avoided" - Kind of like the way the Patriot Act helps us address terrorism, you mean?
"Instead of organising people from above, let us allow everyone to live as he wants" - Sounds like anarchy.
"Let us resist the politicisation of science and oppose the term “scientific consensus”, which is always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent majority" - Like the way the Bush administration has enacted policies to reshape what scientists are allowed to say, and how they're allowed to say it? What if a majority of climate scientists agreed?
"Instead of speaking about “the environment”, let us be attentive to it in our personal behaviour" - Not quite sure what you mean by that. It sounds like you want to recycle cans.
"Let us be humble but confident in the spontaneous evolution of human society. Let us trust its rationality and not try to slow it down or divert it in any direction" - So we should listen to those rational scientists?
"Let us not scare ourselves with catastrophic forecasts, or use them to defend and promote irrational interventions in human lives." - - Kind of like the way the Patriot Act helps us address terrorism, you mean? Or in this daring attempt to smuggle water onto a plane?
Post a Comment