From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sun Mar 14 2004 - 20:08:28 GMT
DMB and All:
l> dmb says:
> As usual, Platt has presented an "argument" that is without merit both
> factually and logicallly.
Au contraire. Consider the following:
"Alarmists Exaggerate Pentagon Climate Report - Global Warming
Speculations Misrepresented as Fact
by Competitive Enterprise Institute Staff
"Washington, D.C., February 24, 2004—A recent report on the possible
future effects of global warming, issued by two researchers working for
the U.S. Department of Defense, is being unfortunately misinterpreted as a
prediction of imminent climatic disaster. The report, prepared last
October, considers a series of far-ranging scenarios based on an array of
models and hypotheses of varying degrees of likelihood. The authors
repeatedly emphasize the conditional nature of the report, referring to
their predictions as “extreme” and “not the most likely.”
“'Some alarmists are pointing to the Pentagon report as proof that we face
impending climate disaster, but even a brief review shows that that isn’t
the case,' said Myron Ebell, Director of Global Warming and International
Environmental Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. 'As with
past national security assessments, the Department of Defense was
presented with a worst case scenario, not the likely future. The Pentagon
naturally believes it has to research any possible threat – whether it be
an alien invasion, an accidental nuclear detonation, or catastrophic
climate change.'”
"The report, titled An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications
for United States National Security, does make a useful contribution to
the global warming debate, however, by recommending the “immediate action”
of improving predictive climate models. The authors also decline to
endorse the energy suppression agenda of the Kyoto Protocol and similar
measures which would make the world poorer without providing any
discernible impact on the climate."
As I've said before, unless we can show Pirsig's position on the
environmental debate relative to the MOQ, this is not the place to duke it
out. Hard to resist, though, especially when a thread contribution is so
radically unbalanced.
Regards,
Platt
.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 14 2004 - 20:11:53 GMT