On Sun, 16 May 2010 19:18:37 -0700, Michael Price wrote:

On May 17, 1:35Â*am, Michael Coburn wrote:
[quoted text muted]

And this is what the warmists are reduced to "Why do something if
there's a risk?".
You already know why if you're anywhere near knowledgable enough to
comment.
Logically any cheaper source that did not have this risk would have
already replaced oil.

You are unwilling/unable to understand that the owners of carbon are not
about to let go of their big fat lollipop while they can manage to get
dolts like Libertarians to protect them.

Since none has we can assume there is no cheaper feul and any substitute
would be
more expensive.

That is exactly the "assumption" made by all stilt brained Libertarians
who's vision stops at about 90 feet or 90 days.

Why should we impoverish the world, which we KNOW will
kill thousands
of Africans and others, on a account of a risk that seems less likely
all the time.

We don't _know_ how many climate change will kill, liar. We also don't
_know_ how many will die from limiting CO2 emissions. But there is a
strong likelihood that many will die from global warming.

[quoted text muted]

No it couldn't, the Gulf of Mexico doesn't support tens of millions
of people.

The people dislocated by Libertartia breaking out in the Gulf will
dramatically increase unemployment in the USA.

Remaining delusional pig crap deleted


--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60