>> Thus, just some examples below of how totally and utterly ridiculous
>> "global warming" is. ANY of these items, taken on their own, utterly
>
>[E-gold related discussion a bit further on in this post]
>
>I think there are many sides to the "global warming" argument, people
>should go out and inform themselves. Here are a set of links both pro
>and con to start from:
>
>http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/globalwarming.html#GWDenierSites
>
>Personally I like this one to start with:
>http://www.ucsusa.org/warming/gw.faq.html
>
>Think of it as a Pascal's wager kind of thing - maybe you'll be
>"wrong" trying to do your part to combat global warming, but conserving
>energy and promoting alternative fuels can be its own reward - and if
>you're right it helps in the big picture too!
I believe, like many intelligent people, you've been "conned", Hank.
Consider the Santa Claus example: OK, "say, Santa MIGHT be real, so
you might as well put out cookies".
Well no. Pascal's wager doesn't apply to something nonsensical.
(i) There Is No global warming. untold, endless evidence shows this.
(ii) The Concept Is Meaningless. Totally nonsensical. An ant
sitting on the pacific ocean saying "hey! I believe our political
policies will result in the water level going up by a hundreth of an
inch over the next 50 years!"
It's just MEANINGLESS. It does not even PARSE, it MEANS NOTHING.
The ant's ocean continually bounces up and down by yards as a normal
course of action and is affected by vast numbers of things . waves,
tides, wakes, etc.
For instance, some of the "global warmers" are SO SPECTAULRLY STUPID
you hear this talk about "oh, it could mean that sea levels will
rise/lower/whatever"
***THE ENTIRETY OF EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICAN, DOWN TO FLORIDA/NORTH
AFRICA, WAS COVERED IN ICE*** as early as a score of thousand years
ago, and will be again in a few thousand years.
>
>> My predicition: within ten years, enviromentalists will be
>> complaining that e-gold and other free market currencies make it too
>> easy to have "economic activity" that is unpatrolled by
>> environmentalism.
>
>I'm an "enviromentalist" that doesn't agree with you JP.
It's simply because you've been lied to. Consider the recent
sceintific report to the white house, the conclusion of which was
(like "duh"), "global warming is inconclusive".
Tom Brokaw got on ythe nightly news and quite simply lied, saying
"the report proves global warming will happen".
You need only simply read the report.
Look, how clear can it be. I searched on the web and in one minute
found ***AN ARTICLE BY AN AUTHOR OF THE REPORT*** stating this:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95000606
"CNN's Michelle Mitchell was typical of the coverage
when she declared that the report represented "a unanimous decision
that global warming is real, is getting worse, and is due to man. There
is no wiggle room."
As one of 11 scientists who prepared the report, I can state
that this is
simply untrue."
"As one of 11 scientists who prepared the report, I CAN STATE THAT
THIS IS SIMPLY UNTRUE".
It's simply called "lying".
Tom Brokaw opens his mouth using his jaw muscles and LIES. Utters
sentences that have no connection to reality.
Eventually, otherwise intelligent people like, I suggest, yourself
Hank, start to believe it.
Again, ***FIFTEEN THOUSAND*** scientists have now signed a document
commenting that global warming is nutty.
What sort of greater consensus do you want? 50 thousand scientists
... 200 thousand .. every living scientist?
There are three climatologists who have ever won a nobel prize; two
of them (obviously) consider "global warming" foolish beneath
discussion, the other one won't comment.
It's just a non-starter. Think about it logically.
As I say, there are DOZENS of knock-down obviosities (long the lines
of "reindeer cant fly") that demolish the concept. It's just not
even sensible, it "doesn't parse".
I believe environmentalism has been co-opped by socialism. The fact
that utter junk science that does not even parse meaningfully, such
as 'global warming' is now part of environmentalism, supports this.
The modus operandi of socialism is to use junk science in some
particular field to increase socialistic pressures.
The classic exposition of this is in _The Road to Serfdom_ where 50
years ago Hayek explains this MO of socialism and predicts that at
the end of the 20th century, socialists will have to cotton on to
some new fantasy, and present it as "science", to try one last gasp
at socialism after socialisms utter failure during the 20th century
(obvious to Hayek at the time). Later in his life, during the
70s/80s, Hakek saw that this in fact was environmentalism!
how's that for a market call! :)
> But your
>dead-on calls on gold prices lately have me worried about the
>possibilities
>on this call!! ;)
>
>It's all about freedom - in the case of E-gold, freedom to choose or
>create and use your own currency. In the case of enviromentalism, freedom
>of sentient beings to enjoy life, liberty, etc.
>Some find close ties between libertarian and enviromental ideals. For
>example:
>http://www.teleport.com/~rot/faqs.html
>For more, pick up a copy of "Bionomics" using e-gold now via
>http://www.metalproxy.com
>
>Best,
>HR
>
>---
>You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Great ventures create great mottos."
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
