[ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled

[Damien Broderick]

On 2/17/2010 2:07 PM, natasha at natasha.cc wrote:

> You agree with the irrational of Alfio that Max is easly manipulated by
> PR spins?

Alfio was making a general and quite rational point about some posters 
to the list, I think, and in this case it does look as if Max jumped the 
gun in citing spin stories rather than the original interview. Calling 
Alfio "irrational" doesn't get us very far in advancing the discussion.

Christopher commented: "I wonder if it wouldn't be possible to disagree 
with their positions, though, without also presuming that the people you 
disagree with are wicked?" Ditto "irrational." HOWEVER... that doesn't 
mean some players in the supposed debate *aren't* wicked--consider, by 
analogy,. the decades-long and perhaps equivalent role of corporate 
advocates for carcinogenic smoking. If that was not wickedness, what is? 
It is arguable that climate change deniers are in a similar position.

That said, I agree with Barbara Lamar, who comments:

<Since I agree with James Lovelock that there is no way we can prevent 
major climate change at this point, I find it highly irresponsible to 
pass laws and force people to take actions they would not otherwise take 
based on the false assumption that humans can somehow make things go 
back "to normal."

I would far rather see money spent on developing plants that are not 
sensitive to heat & cold (interestingly, when plants are bred for cold 
tolerance, they often have heat tolerance as well, as "side effect."), 
on efficient energy production (so we can create affordable 
microclimates and deal with rising sea levels, if we have to), etc. In 
other words - figure out how to DEAL with the problem, not STOP it.>

Damien Broderick