What's the value of this perspective?
|
|
What value is this counter-argument? Given that many of the scientists in the book don't deny that planetary changes are happening, what is the point of rehashing this age-old argument about whether or not it is a human or naturally created problem? The large majority of the professional scientific community considers it a slam-dunk that there is a human link to the changes in our climate. However, as everyone knows this is an inexact and incredibly complicated science. While it may not be possible to ever satisfy every critic, what is clear is that the earth's delicate equilibrium is being radically transformed. This is a situation that doesn't bode well in an era that already boasts food shortages, dwindling water supplies and failing ecosystems. The bottom line is that even if there wasn't any tangible link between humanity and the warming planet, there is still an argument for behaving as if there was. The precautionary principle calls for action on an issue (despite lack of one hundred percent certainty), if the costs of inaction outweigh those of action. It is this approach that is needed here. Implementing tax shifting, significantly improving fuel efficiency standards, investing in renewables, and renewing urban centers will provide significant benefits to the economy. These are all good policy goals for many reasons, one of which is that we have either hit or will shortly hit peak oil. The result is that a new and green economy will have to evolve to meet the needs of our societies. This is reason enough to end the childish argument about who's responsible and develop a model that will ensure a robust economy while doing everything we can for the natural world. Failure to do so will end up costing far more in the end. These talented scientists could be far better used to provide solutions to the problems that exist rather than to continue to delay the inevitable actions that must occur.
|
|
Global Warming Debate: The Other Side
|
|
In this eye-opening book on global warming issues, the author presents some of the scientific arguments of those scientists who are known as "deniers" of global warming. However, what becomes very clear in short order is that they are not deniers at all. In fact they freely admit that the earth has indeed warmed over the past decades/centuries. Their main point of contention, as clearly elaborated upon in this book, is that the science is not that simple and not at all settled, as many of their adversaries in this matter profess. The author's approach is to give a brief resume of the selected scientists and quote their respective scientific views. From their resumes, it is clear that these scientists are world class in their scientific fields with extremely impressive credentials and numerous peer-reviewed research publications to their names. They are scientific specialists in disciplines that are directly related to the environmental concerns under debate. Based on their extensive work, they believe that it is much too early to sound the alarm on climate change and that, most likely, the observed warming is mainly natural - possibly the continuation of a process that began at the end of the last ice age. The writing style is clear, friendly, engaging and very accessible. The many quotes from the scientists are very clear and authoritative yet free of unnecessary scientific jargon; they express their views in a plain English that any reader can understand, whatever his/her background. Consequently, this is a book that can be enjoyed by anyone. If anything, this book makes clear that scientists on both sides of this issue should get together to objectively discuss the scientific evidence and their respective interpretations with the ultimate objective of, hopefully, reaching some sort of consensus that world leaders can more reliably work with, as deemed necessary.
|
|
I recommend that everyone read this book, whether you are on the manmade global warming side or not.
|
The credentials of the critics of manmade global warming and the connection to CO2 are impeccable. These are not the cranks (like some might have seen on the CBC). I have no doubts after this book that the science is "not settled" in any sense, and that we'd all benefit from an open & honest dialogue on this important issue.
Personally, at the end he loses me a little - I see nuclear power as the only realistic way to cut down our burning of fossil fuels and meet the energy needs of tomorrow.
|
|
|
