Re: Al Those Great Scientists Here

On May 7, 5:04=A0pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 7, 4:41=A0pm, Fred Fredburger
>
> <FredFredbur...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > Retards without political power are annoying too.
>
> But they don't legally steal.
>
> The non-prevalent view powerpoint slide for Mr. Mambo:
> 1. For all I know, AGW could be real (or not).
> 2. For all I know, projected dire consequences could be true (or not).
> 3. The people who screech about global warming are scarier (definitely
> true) than global warming (if true) and its consequences (if true).

One man's impending catastrophe is another
man's hysteria.  Perhaps I feel about global warming
the way you feel about creeping statism; perhaps
what both of us write on the subjects looks like
screeching to an outsider.

But I'm not writing to screech about what should be done
(statistly or otherwise) about global warming.  I have
opinions, of course, but how best to do something, if it
should or can be done, is really a question of implementation
that economists can try to figure out.  My opinions on that
aren't terribly informed, so it's up to you, Krugman, and
Salma Hayek to figure it out.  The only part of my opinions
that are moderately informed are on the evidence,
which is actually fairly solid.

I just don't like seeing the "well, we have to look at both
sides of the argument" when one side is Senator Inhofe
obfuscation and wishful thinking.  There are people
(powerful people, not Kunich people) who
are perfectly happy to deny the facts when they don't
behave as desired, and those people are willing to
screw the reality-based community on many subjects,
not just climate change.  So I don't feel comfortable
wa****ng my hands of the argument just because I'm
not a climate scientist.

Ben