Skull Pilot
Diamond Member
- Nov 17, 2007
- 45,446
- 6,164
- 1,830
- Thread starter
- #21
And, as acting has as much chance of effecting any change as it does at not effecting any change, it is beyond a silly policy..
I am no fan of policy which is not based on facts. CO2 policy is not based on science as the science is not at such a state where anything definitive can be said one way or the other. Thus, such policy is artificial. Then, any rational observer must ask to what end is this artificial policy?
Much of the science is definitive - at least to the extent that we know WHAT is happening, if not definitive as to WHY it is happening, or what that might mean 100 years down the track.
Which leaves us 2 solutions - either act now and replace outmoded technologies with new ones - or do nothing and hope for the best. ....
It is artificial. To what end, then?
You tell me.
Why is it always either or. Especially when acting as you say means either we let the government take more of our income for programs that will be plagued with cost overruns and corruption for things that will work minimally at best or we all die.
Talk about paranoia
There are more than 2 things we could do. and the best options are the ones where government involvement and control is minimized