Please try to understand that my generation of elders may have let a lot people down, I suppose, including you. The certainty provided by “irrefutable evidence,” as you put it, is beyond our grasp. But that may not be the main problem we present to ourselves, peers and children now.

In my humble opinion, it is hubris and overweening ambition of us elders that has lead us to accept as real one sadly mistaken belief: human beings “are almost mature” and now can ignore, indefinitely sidestep, or else defy the practical requriements of biophysical reality. Despite all the illusory thinking we have shared and heard to contrary in the course of a lifetime, human beings can neither PERPETUALLY increase per capita of the Earth’s limited resources nor ENDLESSLY EXPAND human enterprise on the small finite planet we inhabit. At the current scale and anticipated growth rate of the global economy, please consider that the frangible ecosystems and available natural resources provided by the Earth for human benefit cannot much longer sustain rampant, untethered economic globalization?

Ready or not, like it or not, it appears the established scientific consensus on global climate change makes clear to us something apparently unforeseen and distinctly unwelcome: that more of the same ol’ business-as-usual unbridled economic growth, unrestrained per human resource consumption, and unregulated human propagation could become patently unsustainable on a planet the size of Earth, even in the first half of Century XXI.

According to the scientific consensus on global climate change, the world we inhabit, I suppose, does not work in all the ways we wish it did. That is to say, a finite world cannot sustain an infinite increase in human consumption, production OR propagation activities.

Sincerely,

Steve

In science, as we both know, the majority can be wrong. Time will tell.

I looked at the article you suggested. It’s an opinion piece, much as my original post above is an opinion piece. Perhaps Schmitt’s opinion matches your own. All well and good. We are all entitled to our opinions.

It’s my opinion that if the majority of scientists on Earth today believe that global warming is real and caused by humans, we should at least give them the courtesy of considering that what they are saying might be true … not rail against them just because they are the majority.

Thank you for commenting on our website.

Deborah

Maybe you’re putting the cart before the horse. I seriously doubt that all these scientists got together and said, “Hey guys. Let’s not do any research at all. Let’s take a poll instead.” The scientific consensus reflects the current thinking based upon the latest scientific data, and this evidence strongly suggests that human activity is responsible – at least in part – for global warming.

I read the article, whereby certain naysayers are trying to claim Galileo as one of their own. You want “irrefutable evidence,” you say? Let it be said that Galileo never had “irrefutable evidence” that the Earth revolved around the sun. Neither did Copernicus. Neither did Kepler. Neither did Newton. They all had very good reasons, though, for believing in Earthly motion. Yet, there was no “irrefutable proof” of the “fact” until the aberration of starlight was discovered (quite by accident, no less) in 1728. It may interest you to know that Galileo died in 1642 and Isaac Newton died in 1727.

I think skepticism is fine, as long as it means honest inquiry. In some instances, I’m afraid the so-called skeptism expressed by some people is really more reactionary than scientific in nature. Scientists, to be sure, probably have an imperfect understanding of climate change. Hopefully, it can refined with the input of more data and further research.

My two cents.

Bruce McClure

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/04/galileo_denied_consensus.html

Thanks to references to the work of Bill McKibben.

By loudly and clearly raising their voices, he and many other people are beginning the process of establishing in public discourse three seminal priorities of the E & S Community: dedication to science, humanity and the Earth.

Always,

Steve

And here’s another article by McKibben in Mother Jones: Reversal of Fortune.

And here’s a link to his new book: New Economy.

Perhaps I have some good news for you. My wife Alice recently bought the book “Deep Economy” by Bill McKibben, after hearing a radio interview with the author. She said how refreshing and upbeat it was to listen to him, as he suggested many little steps we can all take to make a big and positive change to the environment we are now despoiling.

I plan on reading it soon!

Bruce