“The toughest, most uncompromising words I’ve read anywhere lately are in the spring issue of Dissent. In an issue devoted to strategies for dealing with the coming four years of Dubya rule, Philip Green confesses to having no appetite for such strategies. “What attitude,” he asks, “should the inhabitants of a conquered province have toward their conquerors? In Vichy France, for example, I doubt that the left cared in the slightest about Marshal Pétain’s views on old-age pensions, labor unions, soil erosion in the Dordogne, the rights of Algerian immigrants or any similar issues of ‘public policy’ that might have existed at the time.”” – Charles Taylor, on Marshal Bush in Vichy America, Salon.
I REPRINT, YOU DECIDE: Two emails taking different approaches to the deeper issue of global warming. What do we do when we don’t know exactly what the causes of such a phenomenon are but nevertheless feel compelled to act to avert a potential (but not proven) disaster? Take your pick: “I feel compelled to add my two cents about the NYTimes piece you mentioned in Tuesday’s Dish. My background: Up until two months ago I worked for NASA designing and building satellite sensors to monitor climate and atmospheric chemistry from space (I now do much the same thing in the private sector). In my job, I interact regularly with scientists who develop and run the climate models mentioned in the Times article. Most of the scientists I’ve met are absolutely a-political on global warming – they want to know the facts. Looking at the facts, the vast majority of these scientists have concluded that global warming is occurring. There are, however, vast disagreements over the magnitude of global warming and its cause, whether it’s origin is a natural phenomenon or anthropogenic (human-induced) – probably some combination of the two. And this is related to the uncertainty in the climate models that the Times discusses. The basic premise of the article was absolutely correct – we’re not sure how severe global warming will be because the models have large uncertainties. That’s why I think continued research (necessarily government-funded) into climate change is vital (besides keeping me employed). Because of that uncertainty, isn’t it wiser to assume the worst case scenario (a CONSERVATIVE approach) and take steps to mitigate the effects of global warming?”
On the other hand:
“I am reminded of an anecdote I read once regarding the London Plague. It seems that some astute soul had noticed that wherever there were a lot of cats, there was a greater intensity of the plague. They therefore decided to eradicate the cats. Of course the observation was a valid one, its just that the conclusion was erroneous and in fact eliminating the cats increased the plague. The cats were of course attracted to the rats which were in fact the real vector of the disease. The conversation cast in modern terms might have gone like this. Look, we know that wherever there are cats there is more plague. The people know this as well since we have told them so. They WANT us to eradicate the cats, and every day we waste means more people will die. If we wait, there is no telling how many people will die needlessly. Since we know cats play a role, we must start now. We don’t need to know what exactly the role is, we already know enough, and besides cats are a problem anyway, what harm could it do?”
The Dish 