What is the worst case scenario if there is a problem and we don't do anything about it? What is the worst case scenario if there isn't and we do something about it?
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> wrote: > ** > Randy, > > It seems to me that before we institute measures to correct a "problem", > we must first make "sure" there is a problem. Taking steps to correct a > non-existent problem is irresponsible considering that such steps would > cause a whole new set of problems. We should not take DRACONIAN measures > to correct a "possibility". This is pure speculation and wholly > irresponsible. Settle the science first and do not cram it down people's > throats. > > I'm all for clean energy and I am gradually weaning my farm from raghead > oil by converting more and more of my needs to solar, wind and biogas. > That is also why I'm big into cold fusion and doing my own research into > it. However, such measures should not be forced down people's throats by > some global agenda. They should be adopted as market forces make them > viable and financial tenable. As you will find, when you give people a > choice, people will adopt the more sensible solution. I just despise big, > overreaching, communistic/socialist and fascist world governments telling > you what to do to promote their "Environmental Worshipping" agenda. > > That is my stand on it, and it has nothing to do with being conservative > or not, it's just common sense. > > > Jojo > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Randy wuller <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 18, 2012 3:54 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:New Data "Worrying" 2000 climatologists about Global > Warming .... > > Jojo: > > I don't understand your passionate position on this issue. Given some > evidence either way, the only logical position is one of caution. If there > is a possibility mankind can change the climate on this planet, it seems to > me we should take some care to avoid that alternative unless there is no > doubt about what our meddling will change and it is harmless. > It is the conservative thing to do, yet, it seems most conservatives feel > differently. It is a puzzle to me. > > Ransom > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> > *To:* Vortex-l <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, December 17, 2012 1:22 PM > *Subject:* [Vo]:New Data "Worrying" 2000 climatologists about Global > Warming .... > > Here's some new data that is "worrying" 2000 climatologists about Global > Warming .... > > Obviously, since 2000 of them were right, this new data must be wrong. > > This first link shows the rate of ice melting leading to the conclusion > that Global Warming must be accelerating....??? > > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/28/sea_levels_new_science_climate_change/ > > > Then, to confirm it, this 2nd link "definitely" shows that Global warming > is occuring that is "correlated" to the amount of C02 that man pumps out > into the atmosphere.... ???? > > > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/29/wmo_global_temp_figures_2012_doha_ninth_hottest/ > > > But, what do I know. I'm not one of those 2000 climatologists who where > NOT bribed or threatened in any way. And since, there's 2000 of them; > there's only one of me. They must be right and I am wrong and anybody > questioning their conclusions must be nuts. Right Jed? > > > Hey, if others can violate forum list rules with impunity regarding AGW > propaganda, I should be able to do the opposite propaganda with impunity... > right? > > > > > Jojo > > > PS: BTW, I want nothing more than people laying off AGW (or Anti-AGW) > propaganda from this forum. > > > > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2637/5466 - Release Date: 12/17/12 > >
