Global warming

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

Stephen Frye

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.

Stephen Frye

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.

Stephen Frye


>That came later.


>Regardless, you
>were stating that we needed to spend money on the problem,
>pre-supposing one.

I think, if you read above, I said they need to be investigated.  I didn't
say anything needed to be fixed.

Stephen Frye

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list