Posts: 1,450
Threads: 168
Joined: Oct 2003
Reputation:
2
My main problem with the 'act' argument is no one says how they want to act. I'm seeing proposals for ludicrously dangerous actions, like modifying
the cloud layer, putting reflectors into orbit, biologial and chemical experimentation to reduce pollutants, even warfare (of various levels) against major
polluters. All sorts of truly scary things that could severely damage the planet.
See everything in his (Do Not Act)+(Global Warming) area? That could appear in his (Act)+(No Global Warming) area, in the absolute worst case scenario.
Now THAT's scary. That leaves us with a column where you have Disaster or Big Cost, and Nothing or Disaster. That makes the second column, aka Do Not Act,
the better guess.
Now, I'm just playing silly buggers here. Even though I *do not* believe in the science that is politcally popular at this time, especially in the face of
the growing scientific community which is becoming brave enough to step forward and point out the massive holes in the doomsayers...
...I still support many of the initiatives to clean up the planet, simply because hey, why *not* have cleaner cars, more energy efficiency, cleaner power
generation, and so on?
Posts: 3,394
Threads: 588
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
0
We have a politics forum. This goes there. Please move it.
Yeah, what he said. I will reserve comment until then.
Posts: 27,149
Threads: 2,253
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
21
Point. Doing so now.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.
