A simpler solution?

Mark Roth
An Obama administration scientist thinks it is desirable to shoot pollutants into the earth's upper atmosphere in order to reduce the supposed effects of the sun's rays on global temperatures. It occured to me that a simpler solution was available. You might say it is Occam's Razor in action.

I can't believe that these genius scientists have so completely missed the obvious solution--remove pollution controls from automobiles.

This will accomplish a few things all at once:

1) put sulphur in the atmosphere;

2) reduce the cost of manufacture of cars;

3) reduce the sales price of cars;

4) increase the gas mileage and improve efficiency; thereby

5) reducing operating costs; not to mention,

6) reducing national oil and gas consumption; which, in turn,

7) reduces the costs of production and delivery of goods and services; which, among other things,

8) reduces the cost of food and electricity; which

9) allows for increased spending for travel and dining out, which....

We would save the costs of fueling and replacement of the ICBMs slated to launch debris into the atmosphere, thereby avoiding an increase in the defense budget for necessary replacements, although it could be argued that Obama, seeing no need for missile defense, would not regard replacement as necessary, so that saving would have to be deferred to a future administration.


I could go on, but you get the point.
An Obama administration scientist thinks it is desirable to shoot pollutants into the earth's upper atmosphere in order to reduce the supposed effects of the sun's rays on global temperatures. It occured to me that a simpler solution was available. You might say it is Occam's Razor in action.

I can't believe that these genius scientists have so completely missed the obvious solution--remove pollution controls from automobiles.

This will accomplish a few things all at once:

1) put sulphur in the atmosphere;

2) reduce the cost of manufacture of cars;

3) reduce the sales price of cars;

4) increase the gas mileage and improve efficiency; thereby

5) reducing operating costs; not to mention,

6) reducing national oil and gas consumption; which, in turn,

7) reduces the costs of production and delivery of goods and services; which, among other things,

8) reduces the cost of food and electricity; which

9) allows for increased spending for travel and dining out, which....

We would save the costs of fueling and replacement of the ICBMs slated to launch debris into the atmosphere, thereby avoiding an increase in the defense budget for necessary replacements, although it could be argued that Obama, seeing no need for missile defense, would not regard replacement as necessary, so that saving would have to be deferred to a future administration.


I could go on, but you get the point.