Stephen A. Frye
safrye at CONCENTRIC.NET
Mon Oct 27 14:16:57 MST 1997
>Not in the message I responded to.
Would you please post the one I did, for I have no recollection of stating
we should spend that amount of money.
Here are the original posts and my replies. For the life of me I cannot
see where I said to spend the money.
post and reply #1
>"It's wonderful to think that the world is so very wealthy that a single
>nation - America - can consider spending $100 billion or so each year to
>address a problem that may not exist - and that, if it does exist,
>certainly has unknown dimensions."
I am surprised that a physicist would make such a remark. I agree, if it
exists, its dimensions are unknown. The question I ask - does that mean
the best choice is to just ignore it? Talk about burying one's head in the
post and reply #2
>Anyway, not taking action does not necessarily equate to putting your
>head in the head, its about weighing the alpha risk with the beta risk.
At this point I agree that $100 billion is far too much. I do not agree
with doing nothing.
post and reply #3
>It is not a matter of ignoring it. It is a matter of realizing that the
>has always gone through warming and cooling cycles, that this is a natural
>process, and that it is highly arrogant to assume that man has the ability to
>alter this phenomenon. There is nothing but conflicting theories floating
>around that say that mankind has caused the globe to warm, no solid evidence,
>no proof, nothing.
Agreed. It is all theoretical. But so is the absence of a problem.
That's all i am saying. The theories do, indeed, conflict. They need all
be further investigated.
>That came later.
>were stating that we needed to spend money on the problem,
I think, if you read above, I said they need to be investigated. I didn't
say anything needed to be fixed.
More information about the Rushtalk