====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
Brad writes: > > Also, on technical issues I have also stated, again and again, that I > am putting forth a politicial position more than a detailed plan. To > focus on the fact that we don't know if this will work is to focus on > the technological limits pushed by BP, Obama and the MSM. I really > expected more from this group, God knows why. We also don't know if > climate change can be arrested and reversed by lowering greenhouse gas > emissions. Should we not get behind that too? Is it a conspiracy > theory? Should we debate the science behind it and not push a > political position? > > What a stupid comparison for Brad to bring up in support of his position. The argument that greenhouse gas emissions need to be lowered is based on serious scientific studies and the IPCC reports. The brouhaha Brad started here about bombing the BP leak is based on nothing more than the gassy emissions of Bill Clinton, a known political swindler, and this sort of junk to which posted a link recently: "For the life of me, I can't understand why BP couldn't go into the ocean floor, maybe 10 feet lateral to the -- around the periphery -- drill a few holes and put a little ammonium nitrate, some dynamite, in those holes and detonate that dynamite and seal that leak. And seal it permanently," Rep. Phil Gingrey (Ga.) http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2010w27/msg00078.htm ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
