Re: Dave Keeling: Global warming expert shares 50 years of research

From: SwimJim (jamesacker_at_eudoramail.com)
Date: 08/26/04 

Date: 26 Aug 2004 10:09:02 -0700

David Ball <wraith7@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<orrqi0l2vlfia591dqmbu4etdvjce2f7fe@4ax.com>...
> On 25 Aug 2004 08:35:11 -0700, jamesacker@eudoramail.com (SwimJim)
> wrote:

[most of an enjoyable exchange of viewpoints deleted]

I understand your points, and I recognize that there are limits to any
analogy. There is definitely a problem with thinking "long-term",
particularly in the polarized political environment of the United
States right now. If either party (though I think one party is more
likely to do this than the other) put its self-interest aside and
actually acted for the good of the global environment, they'd lose
political power so fast it would make the air escaping a popped
balloon look like a stochastic process.

For environmental trends to be addressed significantly will require a
political will that will probably - necessarily - be enabled and
motivated by events. In essence, an "environmental 9/11 event" will
probably be the motivating factor. This summarizes what we've said,
to an extent.

> >Creative thinking is necessary! Understand that when I said I don't
> >support Kyoto, it's not a matter of not supporting its aims. It's a
> >matter of coming up with something that really would work.
> >
> My concern is that while we wait, the problem is getting
> worse. If we act now, even in small baby steps, we begin to mitigate
> the problem. If we wait, those first steps will have to be much
> larger. I have a pretty good idea what will happen. We're going to do
> a lot of talking and eventually, when we absolutely have to, then
> we'll act, but by then the costs will be enormous.

You are talking about the coming crisis in U.S. Social Security
funding, aren't you?

I disagree with the point that small baby steps will begin to mitigate
the problem. The problem is that these small baby steps may be
perceived as large steps that are actually having a significant
effect. By being perceived as large when they are in fact small
steps, it becomes even more difficult to promote the necessity of
large steps.

I.e., it's better to push and push and push for really significant
measures, rather than accede to small measures. Because when the need
for really significant measures becomes more acute, the general
tendency is to say "Hey, we already did something -- why should we do
more?" If the first step is big, then successive smaller steps are
much easier to accomplish.

Jim Acker

------------------------------------
SwimJim
(formerly James G. Acker)
jamesacker@eudoramail.com

The great tragedy of science -- the
slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
by an ugly fact. - Thomas Huxley
------------------------------------