[Stoves] In praise of kerosene

[Andrew C. Parker]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 13:07:08 -0600, Jonathan P Gill <jg45 at icloud.com>  
wrote:

> In the end, I expect we will have to agree to disagree.  These  
> conversations are unlikely to change minds already made up.

Agreed

> If I am wrong, I will be called silly, but little or no harm will have  
> been done.  I am fine with that.

I strongly disagree.  Instituting mitigation policies based on the  
Precautionary Principle has already put a tremendous strain on economies  
and the environment.  We don't need to wait 100 or 1000 or 10,000 years to  
see if the models are wrong or right.  People and the environment are  
being harmed significantly, right now, as a result of these policies.

Climate change is inevitable, whatever the cause.  By making the world  
destitute, we are left without the resources to adapt to these inevitable  
changes.

> If the deniers are wrong, they will have a lot to atone for.

If this is a scientific debate, why the persistent use of religious  
terminology?

On Sat, 11 May 2013 09:01:30 -0600, Jonathan P Gill <jg45 at icloud.com>  
wrote:

> At some deep meta level, the problem for many is that Climate Disruption  
> is the ultimate nail in the coffin of unearned white male privilege.

Critical Theory?  Really?