One of the new โclimate change expertsโ recently identified by the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (think: Not Really Science People) seems vaguely conflicted about his own climatic conclusions.
In this Short Primer on Climate Change and the Greenhouse Issue, Dr. Garth Paltridge, Professor Emeritus at the University of Tasmania, concludes that it would be worth spending money to address climate change on the following grounds:
- To preserve the current environment for futureย generations;
- As a precaution against โdisastrous change of climate which might basically alter the structure and economic well-being of humanย society;โ
- To protect against โsignificant risks for the smaller and less economically diverseย countries;โ
- To recognize that many of the recommended expenditures (improving efficiency, saving energy) have โnoย regrets.โ
It’s not clear to me how Dr. Paltridge can then set these conclusions aside and dismiss climate change as โa symbol โ almost a religious symbol โ of all that is bad or profligate about human society.โ Then again, I’m not an NRSP scientist.
