Re: population growth & physics ed

[PHRP@FHSUVM.FHSU.EDU (Roger A. Pruitt)]

> > in this case there are so many OTHER benefits (cleaner air, less
> > radioactivity[C14], less political and economic dependence on foreign
> > powers, etc.)
>
> Fine, then let's cut fossil fuel use for THESE reasons, not some half baked
> warnings based on worthless computer models, et c.
This is a pretty strong statement. I suppose by this reasoning, all computer
models are worthless. 
> I don't think it's cynical to suspect motives behind dire warnings;  look at
> the ALAR scare just a few years ago.  Newspapers and TV news want to report
> these 'fast-breaking' stories so they can get ratings and sell ad space/time.
> Never mind whether the news is true or not.
>
> I was in Kansas during the great flood three years ago, and while I felt bad
> that
> people lost their homes, I couldn't help but wonder what possessed these people
> to build their houses in a river bed.
The reason that Kansans built along river beds is probably the same reason
that all people have historically built along river beds--transportation,
availability of water, physical attraction, etc. We don't need to build
along these places now and such places should be zoned in such a way as to
prohibit building homes and businesses in the flood plains. How about not
building along the shore too?
> dave baum