gotta love hindsight

to the impact. They thought they were doing something good for the environment. They were wrong.

There's a lesson there for those who make predictions and speak with dead certainty about issues and won't allow debate or skepticism.

There is a difference between a scientific mistake and an economic mistake.

The debate over global warming is this... if we don't stop pumping green house gasses into the air we will drastically change the environment for the worse. The action being asked for is to cease emissions of large amounts of air pollution.

The people arguing against this course of action are not afraid of a negative environmental impact... they are afraid of a negative ECONOMIC impact.

There is no lesson as you would use it here because the comparison is illogical. Tires failing to create a reef in the ocean is an example of a physical change in the natural world having a negative effect in the natural world. The argument used against global warming activists is that changes in the physical world (decreased emissions of green house gasses) will have negative effects in the economic world.

Apples and road apples there Ed. They both share a name but one is much easier to swallow than the other. Hmmm... now there is a lesson for you...

you are totally wrong. There are sound scientific objections as well as economic objections to the global warming stuff. And economics is a science, by the way.

The lesson is about predictions. You road apples do not negate my point.

But I will no longer engage in this discussion with you.

Bye bye.

I can't spell and you can't edit for typos.

What a "pear" we make.

that the folks who came up the cockamamie idea of dumping [any] petroleum based product in the ocean, much less tires were much like the people who signed Penn And Teller's Petition to ban water. e.g. "They didn't even ask."

Just shows you that everything should be taken with a grain of Sodium chloride.