26 Sep 06
2 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaI did think of that actually, and reconsidered my comment.
I agree completely.
But is it compatible with:
What use is an economy going to be when most of the planet is dead?
I think there are hyperboles on both sides of this issue.
But on reflection I wasn't saying it because I believe that we'll be wiped off the planet by climate change. I'm not really sure about the degree to which climate change will affect us.
My point was to contrast the two things/values at stake. If the choice WAS between 'destroying' the economy and 'destroying' the climate, it's a complete mystery to me why anyone would consider the economy to be so important to preserve. There is no inherent value in having an economy if there is nothing left worth spending the money on.
It's about risk and reward. I'd happily increase the risk of harming the economy to decrease the risk of changing the climate, and I find it really, really difficult to understand anyone who takes the reverse position.
26 Sep 06
Originally posted by flexmoreThis is some real purple prose.
knowledge advances through a central body sluggishly weighing down like a big heavy turtle.
climate change is that huge turtle.
you are a pesky little mosquito buzzing around the big armoured turtle ... mostly you just waste everyone's time ...
sometimes turtles get malaria and that is your 1 in a thousand
hope for glory.
people like you need to be around - but you must understand that the rest of us will not simply agree with you.
26 Sep 06
Originally posted by howardgeeYou sure are addicted to ad nauseam ad hominem attacks. I’ll gladly argue the science, but I’m not going to engage in defense against your name calling. If you don’t have any facts to dispute, then I consider this exercise over.
All the sites you've quoted have been shown to be written by people paid to lie by ExxonMobil.
26 Sep 06
Originally posted by orfeoDial down the hyperbole? Like: "To hell with the economy. What use is an economy going to be when most of the planet is dead?"
Please dial down the hyperbole a little. 'Hurting the economy', even if it's true, is hardly the same as 'causing such massive damage to the economy that civilisation collapses and we descend into the dark ages'.
I seriously doubt that the economic damage would be more than a few less people being able to afford plasma TVs and excessively large cars. We w ...[text shortened]... priately priced because the waste and pollution management costs aren't factored in.
If you think signing on to the Kyoto agreement will only affect a few people in that they won't be able to have a big-screen TV or be able to drive a Hummer, then you should read some of the studies on the economic damage caused by Kyoto.
Pick your poison:
http://eteam.ncpa.org/issues/?c=economics
26 Sep 06
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterNot at all - if you're going to make statements about science you need scientific references to back them up, otherwise your statement has no credibility. If you can't find one, and an objective, peer-reviewed one at that, just say so.
If I did, you'd just claim that they're paid to lie by Exxon because that's what it says on Wikipedia. Googlem yourself.