skeptic
Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006
|
| Quote (Louis @ April 13 2008,13:40) | | Quote (skeptic @ April 13 2008,19:30) | | Quote (Louis @ April 13 2008,03:39) | | Quote (Assassinator @ April 12 2008,19:55) | The whole idea of "Stop Global Warming/Climate Change" is retarted already, not just stupid. Isn't it just arrogant to think we can or should stop those things?
By the way, since when does ginseng grow in the US ^^ But yea, you're right, problem is people don't care about what you like. They only care about the money they earn with it, the New World's new god. |
It's bad to think we can or should try to stop climate change?
This from someone in Holland a country with significant areas currently under sea level? Hundreds of thousands/millions of people in poorer countries around the world will disagree with you on this quite strongly I think. I think something else must be going on with this conversation, you must be joking! What have I missed?
Climate change: it's happening, undeniably, and there is a significant (but not exclusive) anthropogenic element to it. The science on that is unambiguous. The effects of human activities on the ozone layer, or on the ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere or on deforestation or on extinction of species on an almost unprecedented scale or on a myriad of other environmental isses that lead to rapid change in global climate are based on very sound science.
That said, OF COURSE there's a huge crock of crap talked about the subject by a significant sector of the environmental lobby. The "ain't nature lovely" Bambi-ists are the least amongst them. Some have seized the rhetoric of the environmental movement for political use that it isn't suited for. The wantonly disproportionate and unequally applied tax burdens and the ever increasing authoritarian tricks of the UK government are good cases in point. Sadly, funding for the relevant technologies to solve a huge number of these problems is only now just kicking in in a big way. It's 10 to 20 years before we will even see the results and for some places and people that will be too late. Whether we've "gone over the global knife edge" or not, is perhaps open to more debate.
My personal opinion we need to find a lot of technical solutions NOW to some key problems. We need to take this threat to humans (because it IS to humans, life on earth will continue merrily sans H. sapiens) very seriously indeed. That means convenient wars to grasp the last barrells of a windling petrochemical resource costing billions should be replaced by diplomatic and technical effort (in a sensible way, not overnight!), to name one example. The only obvious counter point to that I can think of is if we are really in the shit a lot deeper than we realise and the chaps making war are doing so as a matter of survival (which would actually end up making my point for me). From the little I know, that's not the case, but I can see how it could be. I forget, just how many times could the money spent on the Iraq war (to name one example) have ended global poverty? Just how many scientists are screaming for grants? Just how many nuclear power stations could be built with that cash? I think we've got our priorities arse about face, but then that is merely my opinion. The rest is pretty undeniable. When disagreeing about what we should do when faced with a specific problem, denying the problem exists is a very bad idea.
Louis |
If that's not the biggest load of "political" crap I've ever heard then I don't know what is. There's one simple fact that is lost on almost everyone spewing this end-of-the-world rhetoric and is that sixty millions years ago the CO2 content of the atmosphere was 3 times what it is now and, surprisingly enough the world did not end. Life was not exterminated and there was no "global warming tipping point." The sooner we get past the finger-pointing and fear-mongering (oh yeah, I said it) then the sooner we can start applying real solutions to energy and environmental concerns jointly. |
Please feel free to point by point, with references and referral to the available evidence, refute any and all things I've said there.
Perhaps you have read something into what I've written that isn't there. I don't believe I mentioned anything about the end of the world or the end of life etc, to name but two examples. No finger pointing, no political rhetoric, nothing as exciting as that. Please point out where I foretold the "end of the world" or "the end of life".
Or are you, as usual making evidence free assertions and rendering what someone says, even something as woolly and innocuous as the above (for it was hardly intended to be a rigourous description of my position, or even the scientific consensus, on climate change) as the little "straw liberal" in your head again?
My guess, Obliviot, is that as usual you are trolling for kicks. Sorry chum, no dice. Tell you what, let's debate the science, the proper science using the available literature and evidence. That way when you win because you are so obviously correct (cough splutter) you can take down a big high and mighty PhD and expunge just one tiny portion of that chip on your shoulder. Or are we to be treated, yet again, to your usual diatribe of "waaaaaaaah other people have different opinions" and "waaaaaaah you're mean". What an odious substance free fucknuckle you are Skeptic.
Louis
P.S. I done did an editation, the original wasn't abusive enough. |
and again in plainer English, as the first attempt wasn't basic enough for you, just what are you asserting?
CO2, deforestation, ozone depletion and extinction - OR - poverty, war and nuclear power as a function of global warming?
It's difficult to see where your "science" ends and political tirades begin. Maybe you could clarify that for me? Oh and please continue to do Marx proud in the process with your have and have-nots "science"; such arguments are critical to the science of climate change.
|
