Actually, cutting down smoking by 50% _would_ likely increase your life span. And why do you choose a 60 year old as part of your analogy? That's putting a spin on it that's unnecessary. Anyway, I give up. The good thing is you, and people like you, are the minority. At some point it doesn't matter how many "what's the point" pots and pans you bang change will happen with or without you.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Robert Munn <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 5:31 AM, Michael Grant <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > By 'destroying the planet' I would think it's fairly obvious I'm > referring > > to our ability to live on it. Believe it or not Robbie climate change > peeps > > aren't really worried about the planet as much as worried about it > > sustaining life on it. Way to miss the point though. > > > > As though we can't adapt to changing conditions. Cavemen survived a mini > Ice > Age at least once that we know of, we'll be OK. > > > > There is no guaranteed fail. Not sure how you come up with that. If you > > have > > a heart problem and you smoke, drink and eat fatty foods do you think > that > > just quitting smoking and fatty foods will help? Of course it will. Every > > bit helps. Even if it only prolongs things for a short time it's still a > > short time we may not have otherwise had. > > > > If you are 60 years old and smoke three packs a day of unfiltered > cigarettes, drink like a fish and eat lots of red meat, cutting back to two > packs a day might be a moral victory of sorts, but it isn't going to extend > your life. Personally, I don't subscribe to the patient analogy, but if you > are going to use it, there it is. > > I object to a giant government-run scam that purports to save the Earth > while doing nothing substantive to change things. As Sam points out, if we > burden our manufacturing sector with huge costs because of cap and trade, > companies will pick up and move offshore to China where things are ten > times > dirtier. > > As I have said endlessly, I am not opposed to alternative energy. I am a > big > fan of nuclear power, especially the newest generation of research into > pebble-bed reactors. It doesn't emit any CO2, and it can generate a huge > amount of power in a plant with a relatively small footprint. So where are > the new nuclear power plant permits? Stymied by the same people who object > to CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere. These folks don't want "clean > growth", they want to stymie economic growth, population growth, and human > activity in general. > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:301104 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
