Donny_Brasco wrote:
N_Fiddledog wrote:
Yeah, Donnie what you're talking about there is precautionary principle argument. That's a real lame one.
So your arguement is slash and burn as you please because nothing any of us do will have an effect on the natural cycle of the world?
Why would you argue against conserving the environment and the respectful use of energy? Even if global warming were a hoax, we not better off ignoring the same environmental concerns these 'alarmists" are warning us about.
Slash and Burn what? I mean that's a nifty picture designed to elicit an emotional response, but CO2 is not pollution. It's not toxic at any perceived forecast levels. You don't see CO2. It doesn't create smog.
Precautionary Principle as applied to the theory of CO2 forced catastrophe says even if there isn't good scientific support for the theory (and there isn't), it still makes sense to weaken the economy with bird brained schemes that can't be shown to be effective in a lame attempt to control the weather. Never mind that these schemes are already showing themselves to cause more problems than they're supposed to solve. There's already food riots happening in different parts of the globe as a result of the poorly thought out practice of switching to biofuels. Poorer countries are being deprived of energy, and any hope of developing out of conditions that are killing their people.
What makes more sense to me than that is adaptation. It's real simple. Say you're sitting in New Orleans in 2004. Do you want better dykes, or an opportunity to buy into Al Gore's investment company?
Energy Alternatives make sense, for a number of reasons. Contrary to what you may believe those who support the idea of adapting to possible coming crises, rather than brainlessly supporting scare campaigns support the idea of energy alternatives. They just prefer the ones that work is all.
Common sense would seem to suggest we adapt to the best alternatives with the fewest problems available at the present time. To begin with that would be nuclear. It also makes sense to invest in developing new technologies, and giving those developing those technologies the opportunity to profit from them. Carbon offsets, taxes, cap n trade, and other such nuttiness only weakens the economy when a strong economy will be needed to adapt to any possible crisis, climate or other.
Investing trillions of dollars, and weakening the economy in such a way the poor are dying and more poor are being created to avoid an imagined catastrophe based on an unsupported theory which says CO2 specifically is the villain is mass lunacy.
Here's one I bet you didn't know.
Quote:
“The U.S. remains the world’s environmental leader and will likely be so in the future.” For example, between 1997 and 2004, the last year in which comparative data are available, emissions from Kyoto Protocol participants increased 21.1 percent.
The U.S. refused to sign this United Nations inspired idiocy, but its emissions increased only 6.6 percent during the same time period, considerably less than the participants.
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf ... ally_1.pdf
The Americans were able to do that because of a strong economy, and a willingness to invest in new technologies that actually worked.
