Re: DA is the D.A. (Dumb A**?)

Posted by Dale on Feb 09, 2002 at 09:35 (

Re: DA is the D.A. (Eudaemonic Pie)

Any man willing to give up his Jag and put his money where his mouth is, is one who deserves a hearing from me.

It appears that you didn't read all the words our little Danny typed. He didn't say that he would give up his Jag. He specifically said ďHeck I'm not even willing to give up my Jag and my boat.Ē See that little word ďnotĒ in there? We went through this a year or so ago. Little Danny has no intention of giving up anything for the environment. If everyone else would just do as he says, the problem would disappear. As long as someone somewhere has a car or a boat, Danny will keep his because that is only fair. And when he says heís willing to put his money where his mouth is, that only means that he is willing to contribute to the Democratic party.

You also seem to have missed the Alzheimerís reference. I quoted Rose saying she bet there would be an ad hominem attack. I then quoted Danny saying it wouldnít be him which was posted less than 60 seconds after he had made the first ad hominem attack.

Bear in mind there are possibly many readers here in this forum, like me, trained in biology and trained in law (which includes the morass of enviro statutes and regs) who still consider themselves (like me) extremely baffled. And largely ignorant how to add all this stuff up.

And I have never claimed to be an expert in anything except being able to read (oh, ok, I do know something about control systems). In my mind, however, it doesnít take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you spend a trillion dollars on X, then, in general, you wonít have that trillion to spend on Y. If you can spend a trillion dollars on improving the quality of life of a lot of people *OR* you can spend it on projects that have no proven benefit, then if you donít spend it on the QOL issues, humanity suffers. In the past, Danny has strongly disagreed. Danny insists that the money spent on environmental issues is somehow free. Probably because he is out driving his Jag or sailing his boat smoking his weed with his dozens of Nobel laureate buddies and doesnít notice such profundities any more. But I won't say that because it would be pure speculation on my part. :)

You and Bobba are correct that it is so politically charged it is hard to find the science. But Iím sure willing to give it a try. The science is there for anyone willing to drop their prejudices and look. Yes, there is some evidence the earth has warmed over the past 20 years. There is also evidence it is only coming out of a large cooling tend that bottomed sometime in the 50ís. There is also evidence that the upper atmosphere is cooling over the past few years. We donít have enough evidence yet to predict any long term trend. Yes, CO2 reflects infrared and so should increase surface temperatures. Yes, atmospheric CO2 has increased steadily since the industrial revolution. But H2O reflects IR even better. And if the temperature rises, because of the oceans we will get more atmospheric H2O. Hereís where my control system knowledge comes in. We say such a system has positive feedback. The hotter it gets, the hotter it will get and vice versa. If this is all there is to it, we will either get so hot that we evaporate the oceans or get so cold that we freeze them. We see evidence of this actually happening on both Venus and Mars. Yet it has never happened on Earth. Why not? We arenít even changing temperature as much as the CO2 change would predict. I donít know the specifics but I do know there must be a reason not described above. That isnít politics, thatís science. I simply want to gather the evidence of some unknown impending doom that would justify the decrease in QOL before declaring the end of the world is at hand. Danny disagrees. He wants to take the decrease in QOL just in case Ė as long as it is someone elseís QOL and not his.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup



[ Forum ] [ New Message ]