Re: Creationists Don't Like Other Sciences, Either

In message <kf38r2do8bvspit4epp1k980vbro8viqlm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Luminoso 
<luminoso@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes
>Ernest Major <{$to$}@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>In message <45b13034.8694484@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Luminoso
>><luminoso@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes
>>>On 19 Jan 2007 10:07:50 -0800, riplin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Luminoso wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>    With the ice coming
>>>>>    out of the equation there would be a (relatively) rapid
>>>>>    temperature increase until the new equilibrium point
>>>>>    is reached.
>>>>
>>>>The then is: what is that point, and can we survive it ?
>>>
>>>   Sure.
>>
>>What about surviving, but with trillions of dollars of economic losses?
>
>   Pulling the plug on carbon-based fuels would also result in
>   trillions lost ... and a far more rapid ****ft towards Chinese
>   industrial domination, since China won't stop using such fuels.
>
>   So, we lose trillions compensating for GW effects, but get to
>   keep our 1st-world lifestyles and all the nice things that come
>   with it, or we lose trillions AND our lifestyle AND our niche
>   in the global industrial economy and STILL get GW because east
>   asian countries will still consume vast quantities of carbon-
>   based fuels.
>
>   So, the lesser of evils is ...
>
>   See how it works ? Is it perfectly clear to you now ?

No, it's not perfectly clear. I'm baffled as to why you present the 
above strawman. For example, investment in energy conservation may 
actually save money. For example, Investment in other energy sources may 
save money, once you factor the fall in oil prices that follows from a 
reduction in demand. For example, the cost of CO2 sequestration may be 
less than that of rehousing 20% of the US population.
-- 
alias Ernest Major