[MD] CO2 catcher

[Heather Perella]

     [Ian]
> This stuff is all rhetoric though (I chuckle at the
> people debating whether it's science or politics -
the answer is
> yes, it's called rhetoric.) What matters is quality
patterns of
> action, that recognise reality (not simplistic
versions of reality).


     To go according to strict politics and to ignore
science, isn't this dangerous?  I do agree that
changing the quality of lifestyles with different
technologies and different social patterns by using a
different metaphysics called MoQ would solve many of
todays current problems including this separation from
the earth.  The glaciers will recede and come back
again, but to what ends have polluted water and air
when poisoned by people?  These are lifestyles, yes,
living a SOM perspective, yes, but is not strict
politics (influenced by various groups and at this
time science is not one of those groups in the U.S.)
different from what science is saying?  Isn't ignoring
science ignoring what people have tested in the waters
and air?  Please explain why you chuckle about the
debate between science and politics?  Maybe your
coming at an angle I'm not readily noticing.


SA


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com.  Try it now.