"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
On 7/30/2010 3:51 PM, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
net...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this weekend is
supposed change that.


Never mind global warming. Since at least the early 1970s, we've had at
least one or two OTHER reasons for reducing emissions, and there's not a
sane person on the planet who disagrees with these reasons.

Can you name either of these reasons, and explain why we should not
continue
pursuing lower emissions even if the global warming theory is never fully
agreed upon?



It makes sense to be a good steward of the land. I don't know of
anyone on either side of the Global Warming debate who would think
otherwise.


There *are* people on one side of the GW debate who think otherwise, but
they don't realize how absurd they sound. They've been ordered to believe
some funny ****. Example: Retrofitting coal-burning electric generating
facilities with the latest & cleanest technology will have disastrous
effects on the price of electricity, and perhaps even put some utilities
right out of business. Nonsense.

Then there are individuals who are literally broken, and respond to my
question with stuff that does not actually answer the question. Heybub, for
instance: "In the U.S., noxious emissions have been going down since the
early 70's. The air is cleaner than perhaps it ever has been, certainly
better than 1850 in London."

He thought that was the right answer, but clearly it's not.