Stephan and All,

    Precisely!  It is not as though historians have not gathered a bit of 
data on climate change in the past.  (See, for instance, Emmanuel Le Roy 
Ladurie's book, Times of Feast, Times of Famine:..., on the history of 
climate in Europe.)  We can safely finesse the policy issue of whether 
climate change is caused by humans or is cyclical.  A "Northwest Passage," 
apparently navigable, opened up in the Artic this summer.  Huge chunks of 
the Antarctic ice shelf have broken loose over the last 2-3 years. 
Something is happening that augers a rise in sea levels and much of the 
world's population has been settled for the past 500 years or so at what we 
have taken to be 'sea level.'  The Jamestown site is a minor location of 
risk, though priceless, compared to many millions of coastal dwelling 
Bangladeshis.
    Ultimately, the differences in approach to these problems are not really 
scientific differences but philosophical differences about prudence.  The 
less prudent will leave perceived problems to scientists, policy makers, 
anyone who will/may make the problems go away (at least from consciousness.) 
The more prudent will seek to take action against a perceived threat because 
while almost all future events are contingent, weighing probability against 
consequences suggests rational action to ameliorate probable impacts.
    The prudent farmer accelerates his/her wheat or tobacco harvest against 
a threatening storm.  This action is based on long experience and that 
experience is the experiential heart of traditional conservatism.  The 
prudent society guards its most treasured assets against assessable risks. 
To conserve one's assets, personal and societal, is wisdom;  at least that 
is what I was taught.

Harold S. Forsythe
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephan A. Schwartz" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: Jamestown likely to disappear


> It is hardly conjecture. I think historians ought to begin thinking  about 
> how historic sites and resources might be preserved and  protected. 
> Waiting for the event is waiting too long.
>
> -- Stephan
>
>
> On 25 Sep 2007, at 08:41, Pat Duncan wrote:
>
>> PLEASE!  Let's not start a discussion of this kind of conjecture on a
>> genealogy and history list.
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Jurretta Heckscher" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 6:32 AM
>> Subject: [VA-HIST] Jamestown likely to disappear
>>
>>
>>> "Ultimately, rising seas will likely swamp the first American
>>> settlement in Jamestown, Virginia, as well as the Florida launch pad
>>> that sent the first American into orbit, many climate scientists are
>>> predicting.  In about a century, some of the places that make America
>>> what it is may be slowly erased."  Those places also include North
>>> Carolina's Outer Banks.
>>>
>>> That's the horrifying conclusion outlined in an AP story on the
>>> probable impact of global climate change.
>>>
>>> You can read the entire story here:
>>>
>>> http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/09/24/rising.seas.ap/index.html
>>>
>>> I realize that this is a list dedicated to Virginia's history, not
>>> its current events.  But it's difficult to imagine anything that
>>> could have as much impact on the study of history as the literal mass
>>> disappearance of historical and archeological sites.
>>>
>>> Words fail me.   And though I dearly hope I am wrong, I see nothing
>>> in our nation's condition that suggests that we truly have the will
>>> to act to stop this catastrophe.
>>>
>>>
>>> --Jurretta Heckscher
>>>