Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: The chap has a point

Expand Messages
  • cygonaut
    I m happy Bob Barr is out.. no longer demanding that witchcraft be removed from the military and no longer calling gays perverts ... at least no longer as a
    Message 1 of 14 , Sep 2, 2002
      I'm happy Bob Barr is out.. no longer demanding that witchcraft be
      removed from the military and no longer calling gays "perverts"... at
      least no longer as a law-maker.

      Global warming is all too real.. backed by fingings behind KYOTO and
      Bush's own EPA. Both dismissed by the oil man. With KYOTO it
      was "questionable science". With his EPA it was the economy.

      He's got to go.

      As "political" and as nasty as it sounds, he's got to go.

      The U.S. has to demand a better president. One that's environmental
      friendly for example.

      I don't think Bush will be elected much less "re"elected.

      Hope I'm right.

      This is serious.. it's our environment.. it's not a game.

      George
      cygo.com webmaster
    • dledhead
      Of course, the analysis is only as good as the data. ... not ... about ... view ... the ... worth ... would ... our ... are ... a ... Cooling
      Message 2 of 14 , Sep 3, 2002
        Of course, the analysis is only as good as the data.

        --- In globalwarming@y..., dmgan106 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
        > Cost-benefit analysis has very little to do with honest scientific
        > data. At best it is a tool for analyzing data. In this case it is
        not
        > a good one since the time horizon we are talking about here is so
        > long.
        >
        >
        > --- In globalwarming@y..., "dledhead" <ledbetter.d.1@p...> wrote:
        > > "What if...?" "What if...?" When the pro-globe warmers can not
        > make
        > > a point with scientific data, honest scientific data, they ask
        > > the "What if....?" questions.
        > >
        > > --- In globalwarming@y..., dmgan106 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
        > > > "Despite our intuition that we need to do something drastic
        about
        > > > global warming, economic analyses show that it will be far more
        > > > expensive to cut carbon dioxide emissions radically than to pay
        > the
        > > > costs of adapting to the increased temperatures."
        > > >
        > > > And here lies the problem with economic analysis. Economists
        view
        > > the
        > > > world as "continuous". Therefore, we can adapt to increased
        > > > temperatures. What if there is a discontinuity here? What if
        the
        > > > change is so drastic that we cannot adapt to increased
        > temperatures
        > > > and millions of people die? I'm not saying that the cost of a
        > human
        > > > life is infinite but are we measuring that properly? Is it
        worth
        > > > paying and extra $100 on each SUV sold? a 1% tax on gas?
        > > >
        > > > The other problem is the intergenerational nature of GW. We
        would
        > > be
        > > > paying the cost of cleaning up but the benefits are reaped by
        our
        > > > descendants a century from now. (Or to see it another way we
        are
        > > > reaping the benefits of polluting while our descendants will be
        > > > reaping the cost of environmental degradation). It may be that
        a
        > > cost
        > > > benefit analysis of the situation dictates no cleanup until the
        > > last
        > > > one, when it is too late to do anything. Anyway, cost benefit
        > > > analysis was not designed to analyze a situation such as this.
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > --- In globalwarming@y..., "stevell88" <stevell88@y...> wrote:
        > > > > The Traitor is making a point before Jo'Burg. Anyone care to
        > > > comment?
        > > > >
        > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/26/opinion/26LOMB.html?
        > > > ex=1031380396&ei
        > > > > =1&en=c7c5\
        > > > >
        > > > > Steve L.
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > --- In globalwarming@y..., "stevell88" <stevell88@y...> wrote:
        > > > > > It would be interesting if the attendees of the coming
        > alarmist
        > > > > fest
        > > > > > in Jo'burg would acknowledge that the temperature readings
        > from
        > > > the
        > > > > > Jan Smuts airport that they will all fly into shows a
        Cooling
        > > > > Trend.
        > > > > > Not exactly what they want to know is it???
        > > > > >
        > > > > > http://www.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-
        > > > > >
        > > > > bin/update/gistemp/show_station.py?
        > > > id=141683680004&data_set=1&num_neig
        > > > > > hbors=1
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Sincerely,
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Steve L.
      • dledhead
        Of course, it could be argued that YOU have your own preconceived ideology. And that will get us nowhere. What if...? questions are dangerous insofar as
        Message 3 of 14 , Sep 3, 2002
          Of course, it could be argued that YOU have your own "preconceived
          ideology." And that will get us nowhere.

          "What if...?" questions are dangerous insofar as they result in
          policy that is not based on prudence and wisdom. "What if..."
          questions are dangerous if government is seen as the only solution to
          problems, real or imagined, rather than the free market.

          Did I say "free market"? Cat's out of the bag. Now you know my
          ideology.

          --- In globalwarming@y..., dionysios2100 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
          > What is "honest scientific data"? - That which fits your pre-
          > conceived ideology, the rest being classified as "dishonest"?
          >
          > "What if...?" questions - what's wrong with 'em? I thought science
          > was actually supposed to answer these questions, no..?
          >
          > --- In globalwarming@y..., "dledhead" <ledbetter.d.1@p...> wrote:
          > > "What if...?" "What if...?" When the pro-globe warmers can not
          > make
          > > a point with scientific data, honest scientific data, they ask
          > > the "What if....?" questions.
          > >
          > > --- In globalwarming@y..., dmgan106 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
          > > > "Despite our intuition that we need to do something drastic
          about
          > > > global warming, economic analyses show that it will be far more
          > > > expensive to cut carbon dioxide emissions radically than to pay
          > the
          > > > costs of adapting to the increased temperatures."
          > > >
          > > > And here lies the problem with economic analysis. Economists
          view
          > > the
          > > > world as "continuous". Therefore, we can adapt to increased
          > > > temperatures. What if there is a discontinuity here? What if
          the
          > > > change is so drastic that we cannot adapt to increased
          > temperatures
          > > > and millions of people die? I'm not saying that the cost of a
          > human
          > > > life is infinite but are we measuring that properly? Is it
          worth
          > > > paying and extra $100 on each SUV sold? a 1% tax on gas?
          > > >
          > > > The other problem is the intergenerational nature of GW. We
          would
          > > be
          > > > paying the cost of cleaning up but the benefits are reaped by
          our
          > > > descendants a century from now. (Or to see it another way we
          are
          > > > reaping the benefits of polluting while our descendants will be
          > > > reaping the cost of environmental degradation). It may be that
          a
          > > cost
          > > > benefit analysis of the situation dictates no cleanup until the
          > > last
          > > > one, when it is too late to do anything. Anyway, cost benefit
          > > > analysis was not designed to analyze a situation such as this.
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > --- In globalwarming@y..., "stevell88" <stevell88@y...> wrote:
          > > > > The Traitor is making a point before Jo'Burg. Anyone care to
          > > > comment?
          > > > >
          > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/26/opinion/26LOMB.html?
          > > > ex=1031380396&ei
          > > > > =1&en=c7c5\
          > > > >
          > > > > Steve L.
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > > --- In globalwarming@y..., "stevell88" <stevell88@y...> wrote:
          > > > > > It would be interesting if the attendees of the coming
          > alarmist
          > > > > fest
          > > > > > in Jo'burg would acknowledge that the temperature readings
          > from
          > > > the
          > > > > > Jan Smuts airport that they will all fly into shows a
          Cooling
          > > > > Trend.
          > > > > > Not exactly what they want to know is it???
          > > > > >
          > > > > > http://www.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-
          > > > > >
          > > > > bin/update/gistemp/show_station.py?
          > > > id=141683680004&data_set=1&num_neig
          > > > > > hbors=1
          > > > > >
          > > > > > Sincerely,
          > > > > >
          > > > > > Steve L.
        • dledhead
          It is witchcraft that informs global warming. Given that we are in a state of war against terrorism, I prefer a man in office for whom THAT looms larger on his
          Message 4 of 14 , Sep 3, 2002
            It is witchcraft that informs global warming.

            Given that we are in a state of war against terrorism, I prefer a man
            in office for whom THAT looms larger on his radar screen than the
            imaginings of some Gaea worshippers.

            gaia

            --- In globalwarming@y..., "cygonaut" <george@c...> wrote:
            >
            > I'm happy Bob Barr is out.. no longer demanding that witchcraft be
            > removed from the military and no longer calling gays "perverts"...
            at
            > least no longer as a law-maker.
            >
            > Global warming is all too real.. backed by fingings behind KYOTO
            and
            > Bush's own EPA. Both dismissed by the oil man. With KYOTO it
            > was "questionable science". With his EPA it was the economy.
            >
            > He's got to go.
            >
            > As "political" and as nasty as it sounds, he's got to go.
            >
            > The U.S. has to demand a better president. One that's
            environmental
            > friendly for example.
            >
            > I don't think Bush will be elected much less "re"elected.
            >
            > Hope I'm right.
            >
            > This is serious.. it's our environment.. it's not a game.
            >
            > George
            > cygo.com webmaster
          • dmgan106
            I d rather have a person in power that can walk and chew gum at the same time. ... man ... be ... gays perverts ...
            Message 5 of 14 , Sep 3, 2002
              I'd rather have a person in power that can walk and chew gum at the
              same time.

              --- In globalwarming@y..., "dledhead" <ledbetter.d.1@p...> wrote:
              > It is witchcraft that informs global warming.
              >
              > Given that we are in a state of war against terrorism, I prefer a
              man
              > in office for whom THAT looms larger on his radar screen than the
              > imaginings of some Gaea worshippers.
              >
              > gaia
              >
              > --- In globalwarming@y..., "cygonaut" <george@c...> wrote:
              > >
              > > I'm happy Bob Barr is out.. no longer demanding that witchcraft
              be
              > > removed from the military and no longer calling
              gays "perverts"...
              > at
              > > least no longer as a law-maker.
              > >
              > > Global warming is all too real.. backed by fingings behind KYOTO
              > and
              > > Bush's own EPA. Both dismissed by the oil man. With KYOTO it
              > > was "questionable science". With his EPA it was the economy.
              > >
              > > He's got to go.
              > >
              > > As "political" and as nasty as it sounds, he's got to go.
              > >
              > > The U.S. has to demand a better president. One that's
              > environmental
              > > friendly for example.
              > >
              > > I don't think Bush will be elected much less "re"elected.
              > >
              > > Hope I'm right.
              > >
              > > This is serious.. it's our environment.. it's not a game.
              > >
              > > George
              > > cygo.com webmaster
            • dionysios2100
              Again, it is question of personal priorities. 2,000 dead is trivial indeed compared to the possible outcomes of GW and climate change: hundreds of millions or
              Message 6 of 14 , Sep 5, 2002
                Again, it is question of personal priorities. 2,000 dead is trivial
                indeed compared to the possible outcomes of GW and climate change:
                hundreds of millions or billions of dead and a wrecked planet to pass
                on to unborn generations. I would prefer indeed exactly the opposite
                set of priorities on the White House, thank you..
                And while we are on politics, the question of why, exactly, "we
                are at war against terrorism" is never raised, or rarely. Why is this
                so? If the West, and the U.S. in particular, were seen as "friends of
                the peoples of the earth" then why didn't somebody over THERE,
                overseas, some of our "friends" in the Middle East, blow the whistle
                on Bin Landen before 9-11? Isn't that what friends, allies, are for,
                for God's sake? Why does the West have only enemies or untrustworthy
                allies in that part of the world? Is a botched pattern of development
                sponsored by the West (U.S. and Europe) and Japan partly to blame?
                However, "wars on terrorism" are easier to deal with than
                disquieting questions of long term development or human values.
                Probably get more votes too..
                I honestly feel that as a planet (not just the west as the 3rd
                world merely mimics our vices for the most part in matters of the
                environment) we have our value system tragically, tragically screwed
                on backwards.

                --- In globalwarming@y..., "dledhead" <ledbetter.d.1@p...> wrote:
                > It is witchcraft that informs global warming.
                >
                > Given that we are in a state of war against terrorism, I prefer a
                man
                > in office for whom THAT looms larger on his radar screen than the
                > imaginings of some Gaea worshippers.
                >
                > gaia
                >
                > --- In globalwarming@y..., "cygonaut" <george@c...> wrote:
                > >
                > > I'm happy Bob Barr is out.. no longer demanding that witchcraft
                be
                > > removed from the military and no longer calling
                gays "perverts"...
                > at
                > > least no longer as a law-maker.
                > >
                > > Global warming is all too real.. backed by fingings behind KYOTO
                > and
                > > Bush's own EPA. Both dismissed by the oil man. With KYOTO it
                > > was "questionable science". With his EPA it was the economy.
                > >
                > > He's got to go.
                > >
                > > As "political" and as nasty as it sounds, he's got to go.
                > >
                > > The U.S. has to demand a better president. One that's
                > environmental
                > > friendly for example.
                > >
                > > I don't think Bush will be elected much less "re"elected.
                > >
                > > Hope I'm right.
                > >
                > > This is serious.. it's our environment.. it's not a game.
                > >
                > > George
                > > cygo.com webmaster
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.