On Mon, 17 May 2010 18:34:46 -0700, Michael Price wrote:

On May 18, 4:14Â*am, Michael Coburn wrote:
On Sun, 16 May 2010 19:18:37 -0700, Michael Price wrote:
On May 17, 1:35Â*am, Michael Coburn wrote:
[quoted text muted]

Â* 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
knowledgeable 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.

If you want to insult libertarian's intelligence maybe you should try
refuting their arguments.

They don't seem to have any that are valid in this case.


I understand that people invested in carbon technologies
aren't just going to abandon their investment. This is however
irrelevant to my
point which you are either too stupid to understand or too dishonest to
admit
is valid.

You have made no valid point. While the owners of _real_ capital
surrounding carbon fuels are not pleased with a shortened income stream
from their investments, I was referring to the owners of the fossil fuel
itself. The solution to this problem is the development of
alternatives. And the owners of carbon will do everything in their power
to stop such progress.

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.

No it's the assumption made by anyone competent in economics. If
there's a cheaper
way to provide power then why isn't it being used?

Because the "cheapness" of fossil fuels is a con. There are MASSIVE
subsidies to fossil fuels in ignoring the pollutants and in paying for
imperialism. The people do not see these expenses at the pump.

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.

I didn't say we did, in fact my argument was that the number is
uncertain and could be
zero. I did not claim to know what you claim I claimed to know, you are
therefore the
liar not me.

(snore)

Â*We also don't _know_ how many will die from limiting CO2 emissions.

We know that it will cost at least tens of billions of dollars much
of it from the third
world. That will kill thousands, at least. We know

Nope. "WE" do not know that limiting CO2 "will kill thousands". You are
making **** up.

Â*But there is a strong likelihood that many will die from global
Â*warming.

The likelihood, if it was ever strong, is getting weaker all the
time.

Only the politics are being impacted. The facts aren't.

[quoted text muted]

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

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

You made a claim that "We do not yet know the impact of the gulf
gusher.
But it could be on a scale of the "Dust Bowl" that prolonged the Great
Depression.".
There is no evidence that this is remotely possible. There is no way
that people
could be disadvantaged by the spill on anywhere near the scale of the
Dust Bowl.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Next contestant please.

And of course there is zero evidence of libertarianism breaking out in
the Gulf, the
companies in question were both regulated and protected by the
government, but
keep up the lie.

Any time a Libertarian is in trouble he crawls inside that little box
that says as long as there is any government at all then Libertarian crap
is excused for its failures. This spill and the financial bubble were in
fact caused by government negligence. Government did not regulate
strongly enough.

Â*Remaining delusional pig crap deleted

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





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