I keep saying we're not ignoring the environment. Plan B is because we're thinking things through and doing things right rather than panicking from hysteria. If you act in hast...
On 8/10/07, Ian Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Did I mention the temperatures have been revised and GW might not even > exist?" > > And the key word in your statement is 'might'. You lambaste us for > advocating reasonable action because many of us believe that it 'might' exist > by backing it up with some saying "ok it 'might' not." Sam, many of us > understand that something that 'might' exist 'might not' exist. But many of > us prefer actions be taken assuming it 'might' exist because the consequence > 'might' be quite dramatic. Especially since these actions tend have other > demonstratable benefits even if they 'might' not affect global warming. > > And is the point that Europe may abandon Kyoto in favor of a different CO2 > plan. That is a completely separate and unrelated argument. That is an > argument for different courses of action and which may or may not be more > effective. And if one is arguing that plan B is more effective then plan A, > doesn't that imply that one agrees that a plan is required? If no plan is > required because the condition 'might' not exist why argue that plan B is > better? Unless, of course, because plan B is not a real plan anyway. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Create robust enterprise, web RIAs. Upgrade to ColdFusion 8 and integrate with Adobe Flex http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=RVJP Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:239966 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
