XPost: soc.men, talk.environment, sci.environment
From: rally2xs@att.net
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 01:21:12 GMT, Turin wrote:
>Peter Bjørn Perlsø postulated:
>> Turin wrote:
>>> Dave Head postulated:
>>>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 18:40:46 GMT, "abused momhooker"
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Turin" wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> Capitalists have no plan, except, to blame nature,
>>>>>> itself, of course.
>>>>>
>>>>> The plan is to allow global warming to continue and
>>>>> let the catasrophe happen.
>>>>
>>>> Sure. The estimated damage comes to about $9 trillion.
>>>> The estimated cost to avert the damage is about $500
>>>> trillion.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bullshit, of course.
>>
>> OK, humor me for once, Turin, and post some figures which
>> refutes this claim.
>>
>> I eagerly await.
>
>
>Sorry, but I didn't make the claim. I'm eagerly awaiting
>some sources for those "9 vs. 500" "estimates".
Not going to happen for 2 reasons:
1) These are numbers I ran onto while searching the net over the last week
while conducting a GW conversation with some posters on a forum. I couldn't
find 'em again without a whole lotta work, and right now I'm just going to go
to bed 'cuz I need to get up insanely early to get to work tomorrow.
2) Even if I could show it, even if I could prove it, it wouldn't mean anything
to you and your radical buddies - you'd still want to spend the $500T to save
the $9T because its something to do, activist-wise, rather than just letting
things happen, like they will anyway, because we don't have the capability to
do anything radical enough to prevent it anyway - not without destroying a lot
of human life on earth anyway from deprivation of essentials that would occur
when that the necessary infrastructure to provide them is dismantled as a
global warming counterattack.
Dave Head
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
