No Subject

[Doug Loss <drloss@suscom.net>]

From: Ken Barber <pundit@teleport.com>
To: seul-edu@seul.org, "paul" <psutton@uklinux.net>
Subject: Re: [seul-edu] Re: OT: all about global warming
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 18:31:07 -0700
User-Agent: KMail/1.4.1


Okay, now we're REALLY getting off-topic.

On Saturday 22 June 2002 12:24 pm, paul wrote:
> Ok,  there is still be a case for reducing the amount of carbon
dioxide

This is not logical.  If there is not a case for it, then there is
not a case.

> and
> other gases such as sulphor dixoxide and oxide of nitrogen in to
the
> atmosphere,

This is a red herring:  those "other gases" are pollutants; carbon
dioxide is not.  In fact, the latter is an essential nutrient for
plant life, and it's at its lowest level (except for the last fifty
years or so) in the planet's lifetime.

> In the long term this will reduce healthcare bills

Yes, at the expense of virtually every advance made since the
Industrial Revolution.  In a perverse way, it will reduce healthcare
bills, all right -- because with over half of the planet's
population wiped out from starvation and disease, there won't be a
healthcare system left.  Neither will there be enough of an economic
system to pay for one.

Ken
--
"Thinking is man's only basic virtue, from which all the others
proceed.  And his basic vice, the source of all his evils, is ...
the refusal to think -- not blindness, but the refusal to see; not
ignorance, but the refusal to know."
     -- Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"