"Gene" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:27:26 -0800, jps wrote:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:03:26 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 10:33:22 -0800, jps wrote:

If we cannot conclusively prove man has XX% involvement in global
warming, should we simply sit back and do nothing?

That is like saying, "They didn't tell me where to go, so I don't know
where I'm going, but I've got to leave and hurry to get there..."

Cutting emissions, though, is a good idea, regardless....

Using your logic, we should sit on our hands until its positively
proven we have some net effect on the atmosphere.

No. Using my logic we would actually use science, rather than
political talking points, to determine what to do. I'm already on
record that we should be working toward less emissions... the fact
that we might actually induce a tipping point is quite scary. I'd
prefer to err on the side of safety, but Al Gore isn't "my daddy."

In that case, why the hell should we cut emissions? I think we should
bring back all the flourocarbons. I miss 'em.

Thanks for making my point.......
--
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are
enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.
-Thomas Sowell

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.tranquilrefuge.net/boating/the_boat/my_boat.htm

Forté Agent 6.00 Build 1186


Al Gore is the spokesman for reducing greenhouse gasses. He's not a
scientist. Some on the right act as though he "runs" the enviromental
movement.

--
Nom=de=Plume