[ RadSafe ] Maine --- cancer and cell phones

[Jess Addis]

Please take a valium Gary.

If there's nothing to worry about, what are you so worried about.

I thought we stopped beating that already dead horse.

Jess Addis



-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf
Of garyi at trinityphysics.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 5:12 PM
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Maine --- cancer and cell phones

What rational basis is there for regulating CO2?

The argument that CO2 has a hazardous effect on the environment is stupid,
because even if 
we pretend that climate change is driven by athropogenic CO2, the
environment would 
continue to thrive without regulations.  If the seas should rise or fall, if
the temp should go up 
or down, the result would be a healthy environment no different from some
other periods in 
the earth's history.

The argument that CO2 will produce conditions hazardous or otherwise
unfavorable to 
humans is also stupid, because even if we pretend that climate change is
driven by 
athropogenic CO2, none of the threatened cataclysmic changes are happening
fast enough 
to be really threatening.  If New York City goes 30' underwater during the
course of our 
lifetimes, the worst thing about that is that people would have to move.
So?  Currently the 
government can seize your property, make you move, and use your land for
some other 
purpose.  And it doesn't matter whether you are on the coast or not, so
clearly government is 
a much bigger threat than global warming.  Heck, maybe New York could be the
new Venice.

But we can stop pretending, because the leaked emails and climate model code
shows that 
AGW is a huge hoax.

OTOH, there is a rational argument for CO2 regulation that is strictly
political. A large 
segment of the population is not able to evaluate the evidence for AGW fraud
and cover up, 
and they are going to feel (not think) that it is good to regulate CO2.
That segment is going 
to want to vote for the party that seems more environmentally friendly
because they have 
been fed the same false message for so long that they can't help but act
this way.  

It doesn't matter what the facts are.  It doesn't even matter what the
politicians actually 
believe.  Both parties will be forced to pose as "eco-friendly" until the
general public 
recognizes AGW for the scam that it is.  Its either that or political
suicide.

-Gary Isenhower

On 23 Dec 2009 at 9:01, John R Johnson wrote:

Ed

Did the EPA say that carbon dioxide EXPOSURE was hazardous? I thought they 
said that its effect on the environment was hazardous.

John

***************
John R Johnson, PhD
CEO, IDIAS, Inc.
4535 West 9th Ave
604-676-3556
Vancouver, B. C.
V6R 2E2, Canada
idias at interchange.ubc.ca


_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/