I've always felt that we can't afford to be wrong on the global warming issue. Would it kill us to take the possibility of it seriously even if it turns out to be a "natural cycle"? Though this video takes an extreme stance on both arguments the logic is clear. By taking global warming seriously we are reducing our risk. I understand this because I do the same kind of thing with my investment portfolio. It's called hedging the risk.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The Republican Propaganda Machine meets it's nemesis. Good old political commentary, opinions, and an open mind. Are you a "ditto head"? If you need someone to think for you, you wont like this blog
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(27)
-
▼
November
(13)
- Americans Are Sheep
- An Argument For Prudence On Global Warming
- Politcal Cartoon About a Virtual Border
- The Associated Press: Moussaoui Judge Questions Go...
- Feds' budget tricks hide trillions in debt - MSN M...
- Intelligentguess - Analysis of Market Economics » ...
- Report: Americans getting poorer - MSN Money
- Overestimating the cost of Iraq?
- Innocent Until Proven Guilty?
- MSNBC Video
- Political Cartoon- McCain and Giuliani Walk Throug...
- Cable Channel Nods to Ratings and Leans Left - New...
- Glenn Greenwald - Political Blogs and Opinions - S...
-
▼
November
(13)
1 comment:
EXACTLY!
We all know that the easiest way to address the global warming situation would be to reduce our emissions. Now suppose the theories on global warming did turn out to be wrong? What would we have HURT by enacting conservation measures? Let's see...
-We'd be less dependent for energy on a notoriously unstable region in the world.
-Many asthmatics and other respiratory-ailment sufferers would find living to be a lot easier.
-Those horrid, stupid, and dangerous SUVs would be off the road, making the highways infinitely safer.
Where's the loss?
Post a Comment