Re: [asa] agw: Skeptics vs Believers

From: Murray Hogg <>
Date: Sun Dec 06 2009 - 20:42:29 EST

Schwarzwald wrote:
> Murray,
> Come on. We're going to let the discussion reduce to this?
> It couldn't be your point. You told me you "know of no other instance in
> which this line of argument is used with any seriousness." Banal is
> commonplace, unsurprising, typical. In other words, I'm saying there's
> quite a lot of instances where this line of argument is seriously
> advanced. Are you going to ask me to give me examples where "Are we sure
> this course of action will work, and even if it can work in some way,
> will it do so in the time frame needed?" is seriously asked? I'm willing
> to meet the request. After all, I have no problem explaining things that
> are ban... er. "Commonplace."
> ;)

No, you don't need to give examples - clearly I misunderstood the point of your remark.

I took you to be arguing simply that "we can't stop the effects of GW, so let's not do anything".

Clearly I failed to read your post carefully enough and I apologize for the misunderstanding.


To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Dec 6 20:43:04 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Dec 06 2009 - 20:43:04 EST