Originally posted by flexmoreLilliputians like you keep talking about truth and how I’m a liar or the organizations and peer-reviewed scientific studies I quote are tainted, yet not one of you can refute anything I’ve written. Like Gulliver, I strode among you and overturned your mighty paradigm with but a sneeze. Well, I guess in your benighted realm, the truth is whatever the masses write on Wikipedia that day.
sorry to have made you look like an idiot ... but you can take most of the credit.
- sorry i almost forgot to answer your question - yes i am a "qualified" scientist and i have been very interested in atmospheric physics and climatology for more than two decades since i first studied related elements at university. ... however qualifications are just pap.
the relevant point is the truth.
Originally posted by flexmoreAnd another thing: If you really were a "qualified" scientist instead of just playing one on the RHP forum, you'd know that the men you impugn are some of the foremost climate scientists on the planet and involved in serious research at prestigious institutions.
sorry to have made you look like an idiot ... but you can take most of the credit.
- i almost forgot to answer your question - yes i am a "qualified" scientist and i have been very interested in atmospheric physics and climatology for more than two decades since i first studied related elements at university. ... however qualifications are just pap.
...[text shortened]... relevant point is the truth ... the truth here seems quite clear except to a few blind fools.
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritterknowledge advances through a central body sluggishly weighing down like a big heavy turtle.
Lilliputians like you keep talking about truth and how I’m a liar or the organizations and peer-reviewed scientific studies I quote are tainted, yet not one of you can refute anything I’ve written. Like Gulliver, I strode among you and overturned your mighty paradigm with but a sneeze. Well, I guess in your benighted realm, the truth is whatever the masses write on Wikipedia that day.
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.
Originally posted by flexmoreJust out of curiosity, what are your qualifications? What background to you have in science?
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.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterAll the sites you've quoted have been shown to be written by people paid to lie by ExxonMobil.
Lilliputians like you keep talking about truth and how I’m a liar or the organizations and peer-reviewed scientific studies I quote are tainted, yet not one of you can refute anything I’ve written. Like Gulliver, I strode among you and overturned your mighty paradigm with but a sneeze. Well, I guess in your benighted realm, the truth is whatever the masses write on Wikipedia that day.
The climate change debate will probably never be settled, since there's no way we can have a control (i.e., another earth that is allowed to develop changes in climate without us digging up everything combustible and burning it). FWIW, here's my take on it:
- Burning of fossil fuels clearly produces short term local effects (i.e., smog), and likely also long term global effects (although the significance of these effects in relation to other factors is disputed).
- Simply slowing down our burn rate will likely make little difference to any long term effects of the past decades of emissions. Even if we stopped cold turkey, it would probably take a similar amount of time for the pollutants already in the atmosphere to dissipate naturally as it did for us to put them there in the first place.
- The Kyoto protocol is mostly directed to setting up an emission trading system with an aim to reduce overall emissions. It does not address the core problem, which is that we are apparently unable to move around the globe without leaving a trail of smoke.
- A crisis (either environmental or economic) is probably the only thing that will provide enough incentive to develop practical cleaner energy sources and/or effective methods of removing pollutants from the atmosphere.
rich
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterPlease 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'.
You’re completely free to live like Java man if it suits you
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 would adjust.
Anyway, I've heard quite a few commentators argue that there WOULDN'T be any OVERALL economic damage. Some industries would suffer, and they'd be replaced by others.
The market changes all the time. People are buying smaller cars not just for environmental reasons but because they don't want to keep throwing so much money at the petrol. If you want to talk about economics, let's talk about the fact that a lot of things we use aren't appropriately priced because the waste and pollution management costs aren't factored in.
Originally posted by orfeoI agree completely.
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'.
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.