look, suppose you live in Washington DC, of the ozone alerts in summer, and you smoke, and you drive a car, and you are overweight. Should you throw up yyou hands because you aren't sure what exactly is causing you to have asthma? Stopping smoking and losing weight can't do you anything but good. Pressing for improvements to air quality is not a bad idea, but will show fewer benefits short-term. Doesn't mean you should not put some effort in that direction, for instance taking the Metro from time to time.
So regardless of our understanding of causation -- it's probably not a good idea to build a bunking of honking big coal-fired electric plants. For instance. Dana On 10/24/07, Ian Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jerry Barnes wrote: > > [start quote] > > > > One of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that > helped > > Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of > "people > > who don't understand how the atmosphere works". > > > > Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane > forecasts, > > told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that > humans > > were not responsible for the warming of the earth. > > [end quote] > > > > the rest is here if you are interested: > > > > > http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a-cold-shoulder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html > > > > > Einstein, one of the world's foremost physicists of his day, did not > believe in quantum physics. "*I, at any rate, am convinced that He does > not throw dice.*" But as far as I understand modern physicists, quantum > theory is a rather globally accepted concept. Smart people disagree. I > am not sure how quoting one or two of these dissenters invalidates the > larger consensus. Or as Americans, must we always believe in the lone > wolf and that this person will always be right? > > Even so, it does not convince me that we should not do what we can to > mitigate the risk. Even if all this somehow turns out to be a > misunderstanding the data, there are secondary and tertiary benefits to > reasonable suggestions on how to mitigate the risk. Of course there are > extreme suggestions with unacceptable immediate costs and there can > probably be a lot of healthy debate on where the line between reasonable > and extreme lies. But doing nothing now because "we just do not know > for sure' does not make any sense to me. It is such a simple fiscal > concept to me that it is easier and cheaper to plan ahead and take steps > early rather the wait until the end and the pay for a rush job just on a > chance that you may not need to in the end. Doesn't the fable of the > and and the grasshopper teach us anything? > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Download the latest ColdFusion 8 utilities including Report Builder, plug-ins for Eclipse and Dreamweaver updates. http;//www.adobe.com/cfusion/entitlement/index.cfm?e=labs%5adobecf8%5Fbeta Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:245013 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
