On Dec 1, 2009, at 7:07 PM, Mark Sanders wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig Jungers" > >> I am becoming more convinced every day that the skeptics suspect a vast >> world-wide conspiracy because, in the last analysis, that's the way they'd >> do it if they had the chance. > > Well, it was easy to fit the agenda into our continuing "Right Wing Conspiracy"! > I guess we could quibble on which side might be part of a conspiracy, but I prefer to err on the side that's not suggesting unprecidented taxes and government control. I agree. If we need to balance the consequences of potential massive population dislocation as sea levels rise and wide spread famine against the consequences potential increased taxes and energy conservation, it certainly makes sense to avoid higher taxes. I hate it when we need to spend money to protect the country. After all, it is not as if any of the bad consequences of global warming will every hurt any of us. It is our grandchildren's problem. It is better to saddle them with a disrupted environment than fiscal debt. When confronted with arguable environmental damage and debt that may or may not happen, it is obviously better to risk a little global warming in the future, than spending money now. After all unprecedented weather is cheaper than changing our lifestyle. If we should make a mistake, erring on worldwide weather is worse than erring on national taxes. That is so obvious I don't see how anyone could disagree. It is a shame that the scientists and all those granola eaters cashing in their bottle returns to fund them have turned this into a political issue when the oil industry and automobile companies are helplessly just going about their business, trying to deal with the world as it actually is. If we want to settle this issue, we need to actually do the experiment and see if the globe gets warmer. Then we can deal with a situation we can all agree on. It reminds me of the controversy over cigarettes. Some do-gooders say that cigarettes are bad for you but the tobacco companies spent their hard earned money to do science and weren't able to find a connection, and the do-gooders go an ignore the results. We should trust the efforts of the industries that will be most effected. After all they have a large stake in getting it right. Their stock holders demand that they plan 100 years in advance even if it costs money in the short term. Nick Schade Guillemot Kayaks 54 South Rd Groton, CT 06340 USA Ph/Fx: (860) 659-8847 http://www.guillemot-kayaks.com/ *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************Received on Wed Dec 02 2009 - 06:16:57 PST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:31:38 PDT