Arlo, Well if my hypothesis that I offered Platt is close, then we can even grant scientist a begrudging nod via moq morality. After all, it's more moral for an idea to kill a society than a society to kill an idea...
And in all honesty I don't see guys going into science for the money. I've met a few scientific types in my day and universally they are in their chosen field of study because they are driven by a passion for understanding. If they had a passion for money, they'd be bankers or MBAs. What we need are wise leaders who know how to ask good questions when the boys in the lab coats come to them begging for attention, money or changes in carbon emission. That's the breakdown I see here. For instance, I read one very good accounting of the problem of global warming which showed something rather startling - the most radical cutbacks in industry emissions - all costs added together if we gave the AlGore crowd everything they wanted would just about equal the costs of dealing with the effects of the worse-case scenarios of warming. However, the best we could expect from all this expenditure is a delay of about five years of the exact same worse-case scenario. A wise leader would look at that and realize that its just not cost effective to spend a hundred trillion dollars (or whatever) in order to delay having to pay that same 100 trillion in five years. You're better off just dealing with it and saving your money to do so. On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Arlo Bensinger <[email protected]> wrote: > [John] > > The idea that climate scientist are doing this for money, I find... um... > what's that word? Specious? Yeah, I think that's the word. > > [Arlo] > How is the motive between the "climate scientists" who promote global > warming and the "climate scientists" who deny global warming different? Does > one have ulterior, evil, take-over-the-world motives, while the other is > simply a lone, noble voice trying to get "truth" out? > > Its funny how people who think differently are always advancing some > devious, ulterior motive, while those who think the same are just being > honest and noble. > > [John] > > But something more too or why would so many scientists line up behind a > rather bizarre idea with no logical foundation? > > [Arlo] > Because it is not wholly bizarre, and has some logical foundation. Oh, I > agree, I am no "sky is falling" proponent. But to think that all these > people, from all over the world, are simply part of an anti-liberty cabal, > well... > > And see that's the problem, John. Its either a "bizarre, illogical idea" > backed by freedom-hating, money-loving, immoral "scientists", or its > "unassailable prophecy" demanding that unless I get rid of my F150 "the > world will end TOMORROW!"... Maybe, just maybe, the truth is somewhere in > between... Naaahhhh.... The Holy War is so much enjoyable... > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
