BrianKagy: Read my post. It answers your sarcasm nicely. I think that a number from the extreme-conservative right can serve as an upper-bound limit. The conservative right HATES the idea of reducing emissions; therefore, the # that they give for costs would likely be exorbitant. My point is, if that's the MAXIMUM Possible, then there isn't much risk. ------------------ A few years back on the Senate floor... Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe." Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!" Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001
BK: I'm never quite sure when you're joking, and when you're using sarcasm as an aid to argument. You're a confusing sort of guy . Sorry 'bout that. ------------------ A few years back on the Senate floor... Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe." Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!" Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001
Brian, there's no doubt that humanity is causing some warming and that Global Warming exists. Now the question is, "what really happens when you warm up the planet?". We should all try to read the National Academy of Science's report. They made no ifs/ands/or butts about it. The interesting thing about Bush commissioning the report. was that he actually thought that he was right. He thought that there was enough dissension in the scientific community (maybe he saw the 20,000 different names beto punched into the petition ) that he would get an inconclusive back from the NAS and have the wind on his back when he refused to sign Kyoto. Hmmmm... I wonder what his strategy is now? ------------------ girl you looks good won't you mock that draft up?! [This message has been edited by Achebe (edited June 08, 2001).]
It's an issue of collective security if it's a reality. And since when does every human not face a consequence when murder is legalized? You don't know that I'm not an ardent environmentalist. Not true. I can't prove when life begins, just like you can't prove global warming. Yet you're willing to place restrictions on humans because of your belief. Why can't I do the same? And in my interpretation, murder affects the entire community. Under my interpretation, I can emit any kind of waste I want to, and you can't prove it's doing any damage to the environment. What makes you think you can place those restrictions on me when you won't let me prevent murders? Neither of us have "proof" that the other is doing any damage.
TheFreak, your position fails to account for the increase loss of life pregnancy has on the mother versus abortion. Whether surgical or medical (RU486), the latter is safer for the preganant woman. This is a well established fact in all medically advanced countries that legally conduct these procedures and provide optimal OBGYN care for women who are carrying their babies to term. I would surely give my kidney to save my brother, but it is not my choice, or the governments? Even though he would only live if I did so, to not give him life isn't murder. We would have a kinder, healthier society in my view if we all decided to give more of ourselves to others, but the government shouldn't be able to make you provide a life for others (or give others a better hcance at life) at your own pain and life risk.
Freak, sorry if it wasn't clearer. I more developed the argument earlier in the thread. Headen out for the day now.
