by BurnTheShips 152 Replies latest jw friends
So why try to destroy a movement to improve???
Improve? No. A massive waste of resources better spent on real, factual, provable problems.
You just hate anything semi left even if it would be in your own and your offspring's best interests.
I just hate stupidity and deceit. I favor finding ways to reduce petroleum dependency, just not for the dubious reasons the Gorebots propose.
BTS
No, you just hate anything associated with anything left of far right. Let go man.
BEK: "Ok you global warming doubters, I have a question. Do you truly, honestly, believe that our current ways have no negative impact on the earth and our future?"
Precisely! Bek, you seamlessly interchanged the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming with the adverse effects of modern civilization upon the natural world as if they were the same. The presumption is that to deny one is to deny all. I'm not going to read too much into just one question, however I will say that this "Fruedian slip" is quite common. It's as if to say those skeptical of AGW are ecologically unfriendly on all fronts. CO2 denying Scientists are in bed with "Big Oil". Individuals who a skeptical are republican, conservative or right leaning. Political leaders a paid stooges etc.
Human caused Global Warming rests entirely upon the behavior of the CO2 molecule. This is an Academic issue that has become a political "call to arms". Science and politics are horrible bed fellows. If anything besides CO2 is to blame then the predominantly human link goes out the window. Humans are responsible for so many other problems affecting our world that it is easy to presume this is another. Yet putting CO2 into that role is clearly a square peg in a round hole.
What you may not realize though is that supporting measures to combat Global Warming based on a false premise is likely to be devastating on the environment. The world possesses only so much discretionary resources that it can apply toward its problems. If these resources are squandered than there's that much less left for legitimate initiatives that would have meaningful impacts on our ecology.
For example, an African Nation could be pressured to spend the majority of their budget surpluses on anti CO2 measures. These measures would add to costs and reduce economic activity, yet it is supposedly for the greater good. They may be forced to reduce, divert or postpone investment from say their National Parks programs that serve to protect endangered species like Rhino's, Gorilla's, etc, thereby exacerbating damage to already dwindling Biodiversity. Of course this is hypathetical, but it is exactly the choice that would be placed upon every nation in the world if the hype took hold.
People just do not realize what this "Global Warming" movement would cost and what it would look like in the real world. It's as if they believe reducing CO2 in our atmosphere will magically help biodiversity, pollution, deforestation, or disease. To the contrary, it will rob resources from these initiatives. Thank goodness the Sun is now waning and the obvious is sinking in. Otherwise we just may have launched a global boondoggle that sucked every last dollar available for real and pressing ecological needs.
When hard science gets hijacked for the political purpo$e$ of an international scam I have no interest in arguing against the global PR juggernaut. I feel we just have to let nature take it's course. To date, the AGW religion has not made a very good case except in selective, anecdotal and highly "spun" fluff that lacks any relationship to hard science. So far this year, the natural world is not cooperating with the GW agenda. But I have noticed that the glib members of the GW church are very adaptable to ANY weather trends and can offer up an explanation to fit any scenario.
All this has NOTHING to do with the positive principles of reducing pollution and waste. Every reasonable person sees the benefit in observing common sense in the way we use natural resources. The organized AGW movement is a parasite taking credit for positive changes it has nothing to do with.
What you may not realize though is that supporting measures to combat Global Warming based on a false premise is likely to be devastating on the environment. The world possesses only so much discretionary resources that it can apply toward its problems. If these resources are squandered than there's that much less left for legitimate initiatives that would have meaningful impacts on our ecology.
For example, an African Nation could be pressured to spend the majority of their budget surpluses on anti CO2 measures. These measures would add to costs and reduce economic activity, yet it is supposedly for the greater good. They may be forced to reduce, divert or postpone investment from say their National Parks programs that serve to protect endangered species like Rhino's, Gorilla's, etc, thereby exacerbating damage to already dwindling Biodiversity. Of course this is hypathetical, but it is exactly the choice that would be placed upon every nation in the world if the hype took hold.
The thing is FreeWilly, that this African Nation that you speak of contributes very little to the detriment as evidenced by Big Tex chart. It is we who have been so spoiled that need to change.
GW is not the be-all, end-all issue. This is:
http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/e-sermons/weedplan.html
Knock yerselves out...
"When hard science gets hijacked for the political purpo$e$ of an international scam I have no interest in arguing against the global PR juggernaut. I feel we just have to let nature take it's course. To date, the AGW religion has not made a very good case except in selective, anecdotal and highly "spun" fluff that lacks any relationship to hard science. So far this year, the natural world is not cooperating with the GW agenda. But I have noticed that the glib members of the GW church are very adaptable to ANY weather trends and can offer up an explanation to fit any scenario."
Gregor, are you capable of having an intelligent discussion on a subject without charging the other side with zealotry, botism and the like? Have you actually done your home work on this issue, or are you just towing the party line?
Can you please give evidence to where this " international scam" is supposed to be so lucrative? More lucrative than say.................big oil???
Bah, the only limiting factor on human population is human imagination and intelligence, not raw land. Besides, the universe is huge.
Hybris?
You shock me Hamilcarr, I thought you were a humanist. I love the art, by the way.
BTS
How does this relate to humanism?
