The science will never be settled as long as there is a large financial interest opposing it. Consider that the science has not been settled for the efficacy of many vaccinations and pharmaceuticals especially when the placebo effect has apparently doubled in it's efficacy.
You are erring on the side of destruction while overstating the impact of greener measures. On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Harry, You said it best yourself. It "may still" ..... > > > Why not settle the science before forcing draconian measures? To fix a > "may" and a "possibility" is both expensive and irreponsible. > > What is so unreasonble with that stand? as if I am some rabid anti-AGW and > oil producer puppet as some have implied. In fact, I can assure you, I am > doing more to lower my carbon footprint than almost all here, including > that most rabid AGW propagandists in this forum. And I am doing it > voluntarily. I am set to spend over $50,000 for some biogas, wind and solar > systems to wean myself from my carbon footprint. I dare you to find anyone > of the AGW propagandists in this forum willing to make that level of > commitment. Like I said, going green is sensible if you give people a > choice; not force it down their throats. > > So, enough of this AGW propaganda. If you devote as much effort in > weaning yourself from raghead oil than the amount of effort you put into > promoting it, you would have gone a long ways. > > > Jojo > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Veeder" <hveeder...@gmail.com> > To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:09 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data "Worrying" 2000 climatologists about Global > Warming .... > > > > I guess a true global temperature would >> be an average over all altitudes... which may still be rising? >> >> Harry >> >> >> >
