Quote:
Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor
Because that is what I said....  |
I don't mean to poke my head in (don't want to be involved in the name-calling, etc.) but isn't that sort of what you said? As I understand it, your argument is basically that doing something about what you agree is an irresponsible level of energy usage would be bad for the economy.
If I'm wrong, correct me--I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. But it seems to me that if that's your argument, you've basically conceded that the scientists are right, and that global warming is a reality--but you're not sure whether the remedies that are suggested are worthwhile. That's a fair argument, but one that is far more complicated, since you do have to factor in the long-term economic costs associated with continuing on our current path. Saving a penny today to lose a dollar to-morrow isn't just a bad strategy in an environmental sense--it's a bad strategy in an economic sense.
BTW, did anyone happen to catch Jon Stewart's guest yesterday? A fellow from the American Enterprise Institute who just published a tract on global warming. Apparently the "science content" of his book is pretty weak--but my favourite part was where he blamed global warming on a worldwide socialist conspiracy. Bizarre. Paranoid and bizarre. These are not people who should be listened to, folks. They're crazy.