Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: A Matter of Degrees Link: http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/a_matter_of_degrees#16387 Post contents: Natural variations in sea level include a level ~ one hundred meters higher than the present. Are you willing to risk a rise, of even one meter, if the gloom and doomers are correct? This topic is extremely difficult to sift through because of all the ... misinformation being spewed out by all sides of the debate. As conservatives is it not wise to err on the side of caution? There are many ways we can cool this world AND it will create jobs and prosperity. But those making hand over fist with oil at $100 a barrel aren't exactly the ones who will benefit are they? I've been writing about humanity's need to avoid overeaching its carrying capacity [at all costs] for almost twenty years and have some brief articles which try to explain the situation to the lay man. http://eggheadalliance.tripod.com/ Which status quo do we wish to err on? The one where Venice, Holland and Florida are not taken back by the sea and the carbon count drops back below 300 ppm? Or the one where the energy conglomerates of our world are left as they are to do as they please and any number of possible scenarios could come into play. If there are refugees in any of these scenarios I suggest we house them in the homes of those who said, "I prefer not to worry about what might happen and assume things will work out just fine." One last thing. I despise Al Gore. He is not the answer any more than anyone else running. All of them powerless puppets who do as they're told. 'Cept Ron Paul. I actually endorse Ron Paul as the only one who could free markets in hemp, electric vehicles, and other gadgets which could easily help reduce the carbon count. Which of the status quos do you choose to err on as a supposed conservative? The current sea level or the current energy grids? http://eggheadalliance.tripod.com/onepresidentpaulplease/ Sent at: 2009 01 08