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