In article <PN2dnZ7up6HJWzKiRTvUrg@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>C. E. White wrote:
>
>>
>> Matt Osborn wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What if we implemented the Kyoto treaty and many millions lost their
>>>jobs and homes in the resulting recession/depression and then
>>>discovered that the treaty did nothing to prevent the 'global
>>>warming'?
>>
>>
>> Then I would be right and Lloyd would be wrong.
>>
>> Ed
>
>But we don't need to set civilization back 400 years just to prove THAT,
>do we? Many of us consider it "sufficently proven" already. :-p
>
>

If you think GW isn't real, then you need to learn what "proof" means.

And in 1990, we weren't exactly living in the 1600s.

 

In article <PN2dnZ7up6HJWzKiRTvUrg@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>C. E. White wrote:
>
>>
>> Matt Osborn wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What if we implemented the Kyoto treaty and many millions lost their
>>>jobs and homes in the resulting recession/depression and then
>>>discovered that the treaty did nothing to prevent the 'global
>>>warming'?
>>
>>
>> Then I would be right and Lloyd would be wrong.
>>
>> Ed
>
>But we don't need to set civilization back 400 years just to prove THAT,
>do we? Many of us consider it "sufficently proven" already. :-p
>
>

If you think GW isn't real, then you need to learn what "proof" means.

And in 1990, we weren't exactly living in the 1600s.

 

st3ph3nm wrote:
> DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<gu5tqvcuqj5rf4n4bie9qjjfd90nd2t66c@4ax.com>. ..
>
>>On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:49:07 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>>wrote:
>>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
>>>lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
>>>is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA and
>>>are using this topic as their tool to do so.
>>
>>You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
>>those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.
>
>
> I would disagree. Coming from a (well, for you guys, fairly
> extremely) leftist background (my Dad was a member of the Labour party
> here back when that's what it was) that's not surprising, though I
> guess. I don't think the US needs to be punished for being rich. I'm
> not jealous of your lifestyle, or your political system. Having said
> that, IIRC, something like 22% of our (human caused) greenhouse gas
> emissions come from a country that has 7% of the worlds population.
> Surely if that 7% can dramatically reduce the amount it's putting out,
> it's going to have a significant impact on overall amounts? And
> there's no reason not to reduce output of these gases, when in most
> cases it can be done by being more efficient - which I would have
> thought guys on the right would be into. I would hope that in any
> Western country, we could lead the way, develop the technologies, and
> sell them on to the developing markets. I wish Australia hadn't
> followed the US lead on Kyoto, but there you go.

Only if the theory of global warming is correct. I don't believe it is
and none of us will likely live long enough to ever find out. The earth
has been undergoing massive changes in climate for some time, and I
don't expect that to stop simply because we started recording it better.


Matt

 

st3ph3nm wrote:
> DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<gu5tqvcuqj5rf4n4bie9qjjfd90nd2t66c@4ax.com>. ..
>
>>On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:49:07 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>>wrote:
>>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
>>>lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
>>>is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA and
>>>are using this topic as their tool to do so.
>>
>>You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
>>those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.
>
>
> I would disagree. Coming from a (well, for you guys, fairly
> extremely) leftist background (my Dad was a member of the Labour party
> here back when that's what it was) that's not surprising, though I
> guess. I don't think the US needs to be punished for being rich. I'm
> not jealous of your lifestyle, or your political system. Having said
> that, IIRC, something like 22% of our (human caused) greenhouse gas
> emissions come from a country that has 7% of the worlds population.
> Surely if that 7% can dramatically reduce the amount it's putting out,
> it's going to have a significant impact on overall amounts? And
> there's no reason not to reduce output of these gases, when in most
> cases it can be done by being more efficient - which I would have
> thought guys on the right would be into. I would hope that in any
> Western country, we could lead the way, develop the technologies, and
> sell them on to the developing markets. I wish Australia hadn't
> followed the US lead on Kyoto, but there you go.

Only if the theory of global warming is correct. I don't believe it is
and none of us will likely live long enough to ever find out. The earth
has been undergoing massive changes in climate for some time, and I
don't expect that to stop simply because we started recording it better.


Matt

 

st3ph3nm wrote:
> DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<gu5tqvcuqj5rf4n4bie9qjjfd90nd2t66c@4ax.com>. ..
>
>>On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:49:07 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>>wrote:
>>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
>>>lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
>>>is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA and
>>>are using this topic as their tool to do so.
>>
>>You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
>>those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.
>
>
> I would disagree. Coming from a (well, for you guys, fairly
> extremely) leftist background (my Dad was a member of the Labour party
> here back when that's what it was) that's not surprising, though I
> guess. I don't think the US needs to be punished for being rich. I'm
> not jealous of your lifestyle, or your political system. Having said
> that, IIRC, something like 22% of our (human caused) greenhouse gas
> emissions come from a country that has 7% of the worlds population.
> Surely if that 7% can dramatically reduce the amount it's putting out,
> it's going to have a significant impact on overall amounts? And
> there's no reason not to reduce output of these gases, when in most
> cases it can be done by being more efficient - which I would have
> thought guys on the right would be into. I would hope that in any
> Western country, we could lead the way, develop the technologies, and
> sell them on to the developing markets. I wish Australia hadn't
> followed the US lead on Kyoto, but there you go.

Only if the theory of global warming is correct. I don't believe it is
and none of us will likely live long enough to ever find out. The earth
has been undergoing massive changes in climate for some time, and I
don't expect that to stop simply because we started recording it better.


Matt

 

And there is the nub of the problem: where to draw the line. I think that
this is much of the stuff of daily politics.

DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ml7rb.14$pE3.13@twister.socal.rr.com...
> You list precisely the limited government I support, which must establish
a
> secure and stable environment for free people to flourish. Roads,
security,
> safety, rule of law, etc.
>
> If this is what government limited its self to, our taxes would be 10%
> across the board.
>
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3FABE038.F9718C82@mindspring.com...
> >
> >
> > Bill Funk wrote:
> >
> > > If those jobs are in the government, they are non-productive.
> > > They don't produce anything that can be sold, serviced, bought and
> > > used.
> >
> > Workers bulding and maintaining roads are non-productive? Soldiers,
> sailors and
> > airmen defending our country are not providing a service? Agriculture
> inspectors
> > checking beef are not providing a service. Policeman fighting crime
aren't
> > providing a service? The National Weather Service is non-productive?
> >
> > Ed
>

 

And there is the nub of the problem: where to draw the line. I think that
this is much of the stuff of daily politics.

DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ml7rb.14$pE3.13@twister.socal.rr.com...
> You list precisely the limited government I support, which must establish
a
> secure and stable environment for free people to flourish. Roads,
security,
> safety, rule of law, etc.
>
> If this is what government limited its self to, our taxes would be 10%
> across the board.
>
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3FABE038.F9718C82@mindspring.com...
> >
> >
> > Bill Funk wrote:
> >
> > > If those jobs are in the government, they are non-productive.
> > > They don't produce anything that can be sold, serviced, bought and
> > > used.
> >
> > Workers bulding and maintaining roads are non-productive? Soldiers,
> sailors and
> > airmen defending our country are not providing a service? Agriculture
> inspectors
> > checking beef are not providing a service. Policeman fighting crime
aren't
> > providing a service? The National Weather Service is non-productive?
> >
> > Ed
>

 

And there is the nub of the problem: where to draw the line. I think that
this is much of the stuff of daily politics.

DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ml7rb.14$pE3.13@twister.socal.rr.com...
> You list precisely the limited government I support, which must establish
a
> secure and stable environment for free people to flourish. Roads,
security,
> safety, rule of law, etc.
>
> If this is what government limited its self to, our taxes would be 10%
> across the board.
>
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3FABE038.F9718C82@mindspring.com...
> >
> >
> > Bill Funk wrote:
> >
> > > If those jobs are in the government, they are non-productive.
> > > They don't produce anything that can be sold, serviced, bought and
> > > used.
> >
> > Workers bulding and maintaining roads are non-productive? Soldiers,
> sailors and
> > airmen defending our country are not providing a service? Agriculture
> inspectors
> > checking beef are not providing a service. Policeman fighting crime
aren't
> > providing a service? The National Weather Service is non-productive?
> >
> > Ed
>

 

Professor Google tells me that Mad mag is still around:
http://www2.warnerbros.com/web/madmagazine/home.jsp

Gosh, Alfred E Newman is still around, how funny to make his reacquaintance
after decades...and I don't live in the US...

:-)
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote in message
news:Ta2rb.16715$9M3.5202@newsread2.news.atl.earth link.net...
>
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:SOiqb.11748$9M3.11131@newsread2.news.atl.eart hlink.net...
> > Hello??? LLLLLOYD are you published in your field of expertise?? I am,
> are
> > you?????
>
> Is MAD Magazine still in publication? He might still have a chance. ;-)
>
>

 

Professor Google tells me that Mad mag is still around:
http://www2.warnerbros.com/web/madmagazine/home.jsp

Gosh, Alfred E Newman is still around, how funny to make his reacquaintance
after decades...and I don't live in the US...

:-)
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote in message
news:Ta2rb.16715$9M3.5202@newsread2.news.atl.earth link.net...
>
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:SOiqb.11748$9M3.11131@newsread2.news.atl.eart hlink.net...
> > Hello??? LLLLLOYD are you published in your field of expertise?? I am,
> are
> > you?????
>
> Is MAD Magazine still in publication? He might still have a chance. ;-)
>
>