millennia or two, the course of the 20th century, or the past few decades, when the world’s climate alarmists claim that the planet warmed at a rate and to a degree that they contend was unprecedented over the past thousand or two years. And the common finding of all of this research was a resounding No! ¶ But even this near-universal repudiation of climate-alarmist contentions has not been enough to cause them to alter their overriding goal of reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Invoking
the precautionary principle , they essentially say that the potential climatic outcomes they foresee are so catastrophic that we cannot afford to gamble upon them being wrong, evoking the old adage that it is better to be safe than sorry, even if the cost is staggering . ¶ If this were all there were to the story, we all would agree with them. But it is not , for they ignore an even more ominous catastrophe that is rushing towards us like an out-of-control freight train that is only years away from occurring. And preventing this ominous future involves letting the air’s CO2 content continue its historical upward course, until the age of fossil fuels gradually peaks and then naturally, in the course of unforced innovation, declines, as other sources of energy gradually become more efficient and less expensive , and without the forced intervention of government.
Science Diplomacy Science Diplomacy can’t be achieved- cooperation is limited between scientist and politicians Dickson 9 David Dickson was the founding director of SciDev.Net and spent many years at Nature, as its Washington correspondent and later as news editor. He also worked on the staffs of Science and New Scientist, specializing in reporting on science policy. He started a career in journalism as a sub-editor, following a degree in mathematics, The limits of science diplomacy, 6-27-14, Using science for diplomatic purposes has obvious attractions and several benefits. But there are limits to what it can achieve. ¶ The scientific community has a deserved reputation for its international perspective — scientists often ignore national boundaries and interest s when it comes to exchanging ideas or collaborating on global problems. So it is not surprising that science attracts the interest of politicians keen to open channels of communication with other states. Signing agreements on scientific and technological cooperation is often the first step for countries wanting to forge closer working relationships. More significantly, scientists have formed key links behind-the-scenes when more overt dialogue has been impossible. At the height of the Cold War, for example, scientific organisations provided a conduit for discussing nuclear weapons control.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 46 pages?
- Summer '18