Shared Successes Under Dubya

[j_b]

the ozone/ CFC linkage was never actually proven?

 

you are such a crackpot. You standard of proof for all intent and purpose does not exist in science.

 

The reality is that markets adjust themselves to shortages

 

you are blind dude! the logging industry only adjusted to continued corporate subsidies and has kept cutting disappearing stands of quality trees. And its only one example.

 

We are not irretrievably tied to any one way of doing things

 

if you think we'll be able to continue wasting energy the way we have been doing once oil is gone, you are dreaming! So what does it tell you? there is no tomorrow and you don't care?

 

etc ...

[j_b]

You seem to have difficulty with recognizing what I actually write. I suspect my posts are often so visceral to you it kicks some impulse and you take right off on that tangent, instead of reading what I wrote

 

you are so eager to bash that you didn't even realize I was answering RobBob. So what were you saying?

 

[MtnGoat]

"you are such a crackpot. You standard of proof for all intent and purpose does not exist in science."

 

You mean I don't find that shaking chicken bones in your closet at midnight in front of the black candles, proof it kept the elephants out of it? Shocking. It's gonna be pretty funny in a decade or so when solar conditions change, or whatever drives the oscillations, and new ozone holes open up while you're claiming your laws fixed them. What will be needed then? Limitations on soda pop?

 

"the logging industry only adjusted to continued corporate subsidies and has kept cutting disappearing stands of quality trees. And its only one example."

 

And it's a good one. It's a perfect example of how subsidies distort true costs and market operation, resulting in overuse of limited resources, at falsely low prices, because there is no actual free market interaction between cost and benefit. . logging should never have been subsidized in the first place.

 

 

"if you think we'll be able to continue wasting energy the way we have been doing once oil is gone, you are dreaming!"

 

No matter who uses what, someone will always come up with a reason someone else is "wasting" it. Waste is in the eye of the beholder. If you pay for what you use, how you use it is your choice.

 

If you wish to travel down the way to criticizing waste, shall we begin with you and your non essential desires? Do you waste energy taking vacations? Isn't the earth more important than your selfish desire for variety? When you are off work, do you do anything for fun? what about that waste? What about the pollution created to provide you with more than one pair of pants? Multiply that times a lot of people , and that's a lot of waste.

 

Now of course, some will claim this doesn't count. And that's the problem. They want to pick and choose who's use is

"waste" and whose isn't, using their own personally perfect standard.

 

"So what does it tell you? there is no tomorrow and you don't care?"

 

Hardly, it tells me there's a great tomorrow, as long as we can keep stasists like you from placing everyone and everything in a box of artificial limitations. I care plenty, I don't need to buy your view of limitations in order to do so.

Edited January 11, 2003 by MtnGoat

[MtnGoat]

"you are so eager to bash that you didn't even realize I was answering RobBob. So what were you saying?"

 

My mistake. There are so many replies flying it was not clear whom was responding to whom. I withdraw my comment.

 

 

 

[allthumbs]

Well ya didn't thank me for the nice compliment I gave ya, ya old goat.

[MtnGoat]

thank you trask. I bow before your radiance.

[Scott_J]

do you ever say anything in one or two simple sentences

geeee

[j_b]

do you ever say anything in one or two simple sentences

 

He can't. If he did he could not drown us with his convoluted brand of logic and cliches.

[j_b]

I am not going to respond to all that you say because everybody knows you'll write another couple of pages of nonsense no matter what anyone says.

 

I'll just take one example: I observe that regulation of CFC to reduce ozone depletion is an example of environmental mayhem that could not be addressed by the dynamics of the free market.

 

and this your response:

 

You mean I don't find that shaking chicken bones in your closet at midnight in front of the black candles, proof it kept the elephants out of it? Shocking. It's gonna be pretty funny in a decade or so when solar conditions change, or whatever drives the oscillations, and new ozone holes open up while you're claiming your laws fixed them. What will be needed then? Limitations on soda pop?

 

well for starters here is 2002 scientific assessment from the scientific committee of the United Nation:

http://www.unep.org/ozone/pdf/execsumm-sap2002.pdf

 

the assessment of the National Academy of Science: http://www.ncseonline.org/NCSEconference/2000conference/Chafee/

 

the assessment of the EPA: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/

 

the assessment of the world meteorological organisation: http://www.wmo.ch/web/Press/Press679.doc

 

bottom line 1: complying with CFC regulations is essential to repairing the ozone layer

 

bottom line 2: you are a crackpot and you are wasting my time.