In message , Gianna
writes
Norman Lynagh wrote:
The following site is quite interesting
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
Table 2 and Fig 2 suggest to me that time and money would be best
spent on finding ways of coping with the inevitable climate changes
rather than pussy-footing around trying (unsuccessfully?) to find
ways of reducing the growth in emissions by a few percent. But I
suppose that drawing up a plan for the evacuation of Central London
within the next 50-100 years is not exactly a short-term vote winner :-)


Very well said!

The issue of who or what is to blame seems to have more importance than
working out how to adapt to the consequences, when in fact it does not
matter.

If you insist on ignorance about the causes of global warming then you
are insisting on tying one hand behind your back when it comes to taking
remedial action.

Those who favour the 'people did it' view automatically move along to
the 'then people will fix it' view, all the while missing the point
that if their view is correct, then it was always too late to try to
mend something by damaging it a bit less in future. There are more
important things than their egos.

But you would seem to have it that if we've damaged the climate, it's OK
for us to go ahead and damage it even more. The problem isn't so much
the change to the climate that as already happened as the change that we
can foresee happening if we carry on with "business as usual".

Your point about votes does highlight the main flaw in partisan
representative democracies ... they are very partisan, not very
representative, and barely democratic.

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley