Louis
Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
| Quote (skeptic @ April 20 2008,20:23) | no George, I don't think that the scientists involved in the primary research of climate change should be a part do creating solutions in relation to predicted impacts. The potential for bias is too great. Consider if the drug companies also ran the FDA...lol, maybe that is actually the perfect example. Anyway, that is just my opinion and I know its not always practical to achieve that level of abstraction.
And NO, Louis I will not apologize for anything as I have nothing to apologize for. I remarked about your obvious political statements and then enumerated them. It's not my fault that you're too stupid to understand what I was saying. Nor do I have the time to reiterate them at your remedial level. Do try to keep up, might I suggest a tutor. |
Nothing to apologise for? So you're a liar, a coward, and an arrogant fuckwit who can't see what's right in front of his face? Wow! Way to lower the lar Obliviot!
Try this for size:
| Quote | | 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. |
Just point out, for example, where I mentioned anything about "the extemination of life". Hint: I've bolded something you might want to read. So unless I have said that life on the planet was going to end because of CO2 pp in the atmosphere increasing, then you are misrepresenting my comments by creating one of your familiar strawmen. You need to apologise for misrepresenting someone else's views by lying about what they have said. Simple.
(Aside: Incidentally Obliviot, I know for a stand out fact you have no clue about any of my views on any subject. You've never read anything I've ever written. You've skimmed them, assumed that they fit your prejudices and reacted accordingly. I'm not the only one to notice this. Try being less of a fucktard and try doing the basics.)
In the posts subsequent to this I make it very clear that the post you quote did contain political points, certainly nothing I would deny. Nor am I stupid enough to miss your incredibly pointless point, as indeed I've demonstrated (this would involve you actually reading something for basic comprehension). What I would like is for you to stop arguing against some strawman of your own confection and deal with what people actually say.
A second thing I would like you to do is make some comment about what aspects of the scientific data regarding climate change you disagree with. Note well: I don't want you to pick out bits of my posts, I want you to state your own opinion on matters of climate change. "tipping points" is one area perhaps where you could do this. Try to realise this is a seperate isssue from a) anything I have said or b) your misrepresentation of it.
Understand now you pathetic fucking simpleton?
Louis
I did done and editerisation for quote tags
--------------
Bye.
|
