Replies

Thanks very much to both of you for finding that. Part of me wants to compare that version to Daschle’s version, just to get more insight into where the differences lie. Part of me doesn’t want to bother because I don’t like the replacement version Thompson co-sponsored, either.

I do like the R&D part, because as we’ve seen through DARPA R&D on any subject can have unexpected and positive consequences. However, I do not like even conceding that climate change is caused by humans, and I like the idea of binding international treaties on the subject even less (no matter how the treaties are worded).

I still strongly support Thompson, based on any number of issues. But I would like to hear clarification of his plans in this area. Thanks again.

Thanks very much to both of you for finding that. Part of me wants to compare that version to Daschle’s version, just to get more insight into where the differences lie.

Too much punishment--save yourself! LOL.

Part of me doesn’t want to bother because I don’t like the replacement version Thompson co-sponsored, either.

Yep.

I do like the R&D part, because as we’ve seen through DARPA R&D on any subject can have unexpected and positive consequences.

I disagree. DARPA did not just do research for research sake. There was some intended purpose, which often did result in some other unintended discovery as a side benefit. A possible side benefit should not justify the investment alone. This is much different than DARPA. Spending money to try to relieve the effects of man made global warming, when the science associated with the "man made" conclusion is questionable, and evidence that global warming is a problem is inconclusive, is a misuse of taxpayer dollars. It is a form of pork for those green energy companies looking for government to fund what the private sector should be doing.

However, I do not like even conceding that climate change is caused by humans, and I like the idea of binding international treaties on the subject even less (no matter how the treaties are worded).

On that, we agree.

I give ellery lots of credit. She is one of a handful of Fredheads that is very serious about her research. And she noted that this author’s contention that it was Dashole’s title X program was wrong. When I looked up the Title X stuff, all I found was 2 versions of Dasholes with no conformed final. So thanks to both of you for getting it right.