Subject: Re: storing solar heat

From: [email-masked] (Ed)
Date: 25 Mar 1997 01:36:50 GMT

On Tue, 25 Feb 1997 10:36:09 -0500, [email-masked] (Steve
Scott) wrote:

>Agreed, we should be researching alternative sources of energy.  However
>I find it difficult to listen to doomsayers with a straight face.
>

It's kind of funny that you are the second person in this newsgroup to
say something like this, and yet I don't recall any doomsaying at all.

What are you reacting to if not to the postings here?

---

From: [email-masked] (David Buchner)
Date: 25 Mar 1997 01:36:53 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] wrote:
> >>We'll be in a better position to determine that when it's proven that
> >>freon does damage to the ozone layer.
 
> >You mean after you have conducted your own personal investigation in
> >addition to the one done by NASA involving several special satellites
> >and a great deal of effort? Because those scientists are pretty
> >convinced.
 
> Yes, some scientists are very convinced.  And at least an equal number
> remain totally unconvinced.  There is nowhere near a consensus in the
> scientific community at this point.

Why is this civilization so stubborn in its insistence that everything
must have scientific-type *proof* of the right thing to do before doing
it? Absolutely the scientific process requires such repeatable, reliable
proof. But mightn't we be foolish to assume we should do *everything* this
way? It would be dumb to assume the correctness of cold fusion or
UFO's-are-alien-spaceships claims without solid verification, but human
issues, and issues which *might* involve immediate risk, are different.
Aren't they? People become resentful of scientific arrogance over just
this kind of thing -- where we're supposed to wait until They say so
before taking action.

-- 
Everyone else was doing it, so I put "REMOVE.TO.MAIL.ME." in my return address. Remove it to, um, mail me.

---

From: [email-masked] (Nick Pine)
Date: 25 Mar 1997 01:36:49 GMT

Sylvan Butler <[email-masked]> wrote:

>The supply of oil will always be sufficient, but it will become more
>expensive if the supply begins to run low.

It might also become more expensive if we stopped bombing Iraq.

Nick