NOTE FROM WEBMASTER: This post was heavily edited to correct mis-use of the "quote" tag that was causing this post to blow the margins of the entire thread. I believe I have not materially changed the content of the post.



Wouldn't you rather save them both if you could? You can at least try, by being conscienscious in your consumption of resources.



It's been reduced, as I mentioned before, by the fact thta flies and other insects participate in the process too, but debunked? ... well, we'll see ... You may be right.





You can't seriously believe that it's the same thing. The entire environmental protection concept is centered on protecting the world, not from its own natural processes, but from the stupid, selfish, economically motivated, damage caused by man. The planet can remain in balance so long as man doesn't interfere. By runing sequestered carbon, by heating the planet with all his mechanisms and transmission lines, man is heating the planet disproportionally with the natural processes that allow the temperature to be regulated. In the meantime all the carbon-fuel consumption puts CO2 in the atmosphere, a extra few ppb of which will reduce the means for that human-generated heat to escape.





How many kids does it take to warrant a need for 6-passenger car. The guy drives a Blazer because they're cheap, and nobody in his right mind would want one. He's poor. That's why he drives it.

Now I only mentioned this because you said that your willingness to buy and, if you want, to waste whatever, won't harm any one. I disagree. I don't sympathize with the guy who buys a dirty, polluting vehicle just because he's unwilling to walk, bicycle, or take the bus.





Perhaps, but power plants take decades to build, and often break down, when it's convenient for the energy companies. The CA "rolling blackouts" have been shown to have been caused by manipulation by companies trading in energy to raise the price, like Enron, and not at all by shortages. What's more, they seldom meet their design criteria and often cost way more than they were supposed to. That nuclear plant in Platteville cost Colorado Utilites and the taxpayers who were hornswoggled into subsidizing it, over two billion dollars back in the 70's. It's never sold one watt-hour of power and has been decommissioned if I'm not mistaken.

Since power plants take decades to build, what will solve the problem within this life? Well, the only real candidate is economizing, and that begins with charging a higher rate for using more power. They charge ME a higher rate if I use more power. The lowest rates should go to the smallest users. Those office buildings should turn things off when they're not using 'em and they'd figure out where they can ecomomize if they had an incentive, like a rate penalty for excessive use or waste. They could also turn down the heat in the winter and raise the temperature in the summer. If it cost 'em 100x as much to waste 1%, they'd not waste it.





That won't solve the problem this week! Economizing would.





I wasn't referring to income distribution. I was referring to material wealth. I recently read that over 90% of all Mexican resources, land, money, etc, are owned by fewer than 100 individuals.



Hogwash! The "demonstration" simply showed that that individual had no concept of what matters. The planet isn't heated excessively by heat coming in from the sun. It's damaged by heat being generated by man and then being prevented from escaping by the increased CO2 in the atmosphere.





It's as I said, from the eastern seaboard to the Mississippi river. The states to which you refer are the plains and western desert states not the mid-west.





as I said, it allows me to avoid disappointment.





It's not negativity, it's realism.



Of that there can be no doubt. However, the purpose of protecting the environment is to avoid impacting it with foolish and shortsighted activity or inaction that modifies that otherwise naturally occurring cycle.

Don't you agree that it's safer to err on the side of caution?

Oh ... I forgot ... you certainly wouldn't want to endure the inconvenience.

You once said that the activites of man are also a naturally occurring phenomenon. It certainly is possible to see things in that light. Consider, then, that this world-wide discussion is also a naturally occurring phenomenon, as it will cause much contemplation, some rational thought, and, perhaps, the correct action. It won't happen today, but if it doesn't happen relatively soon, it may well be very much too late to have any favorable effect. Hopefully, I won't be around to witness the consequence of whatever action or inaction results from the great debate over this climate change issue. Perhaps you won't either.

RE