Thread: Get a Horse!!!
View Single Post
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2006, 09:02 AM
MerlinX's Avatar
MerlinX MerlinX is offline
Commentator
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Occupied California
Posts: 1,442
usa us california
MerlinX is on a distinguished road
Credits: 10,989
Default .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnderondon";p=&quot View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by MerlinX";p=&quot View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnderondon";p=&quot View Post
Enviromental concerns outweigh rising fuel prices, IMO.
That's valid. But I believe the impact to the environment has been greatly exagerrated.
I think there`s two issues here.

Localised enviromental damage from drilling and globalised damage from carbon fuels.

Do you consider the first issue to be exagerrated too?
Yep.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnderondon";p=&quot View Post
And, whilst I understand that you have not yet been convinced with regards the second, do you not think it wise, considering the mounting weight of evidence in support, the near universal consensus of scientists....
Mounting weight of evidence? Which evidence are you referring to? That's the problem. We have much consensus and yet little real evidence. And quite frankly a consensus of scientific opinion isn't worth a whole lot. Popular theories are disproven rather frequently. In fact, in the 1970s, global cooling was a popular theory among scientists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnderondon";p=&quot View Post
...and the scale of the catastrophe predicted...
I may just be a lone voice in the wilderness here, but before making expensive policy decisions on the basis of climate models and such, shouldn't we at least require that those models be able to predict future temperatures accurately for a period of say, ten years? I mean, at the moment, scientists can't even accurately predict next week's weather. Yet we're supposed to believe they know what the earth's climate will be like in 100 years?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnderondon";p=&quot View Post
...to consider a moritorium on further expansion and pursue, with all vigour, alternative energy sources? At least until a clearer picture emerges?
Now, all environmental concerns aside, I consider research into alternative fuels a good idea. However, I am against taxpayer dollars being used to fund that research. After all, how much government seed money did the fledgling oil industry need?
Reply With Quote