Precisely my point, Harold, though better framed than my effort.

-- Stephan

On 25 Sep 2007, at 13:51, Debra Jackson/Harold Forsythe wrote:

> 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