Comment Re:Proof (Score 1) 546
Normally, I say something like,
You effect a change to affect something with an effect.
Give that a little thought.
Done. Still stands. Your argument is vindicated because you argued with someone who disagreed with you, and used information from their side against them. They lost, but you sure as hell didn't win.
By that bizarre logic the earth itself is an infection.
That's so non sequitur I'm unsure how to respond to it. An infection upon what? The solar system? For the destabilizing influence it has upon it? The Universe? Help me.
Given that the earth has never had a stable climate, your notions are entirely alien to nature itself.
This is nonsense. The glacial/interglacial oscillation of the current ice age is quite stable. The fact that catastrophes have occurred to destabilize it on 2-3 occasions in the last million or so years does not unstable make.
No, you refer to watermelons, the leftist interpretation of environmentalism - which has very firm roots among the monied classes of the 19th century, to say nothing of conservationism whose earliest manifestations can be tracked back a full thousand years earlier. Much like social welfare systems and every other ostensible social good Marxists have latched onto since Karl hoisted the first of many, many alcoholic beverages, this stuff has been around for a very long time. You'd think you people would learn, I mean Russia has wound up somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan and China's busily returning to its imperial roots, complete with caste system. What you do is create reactions which eventually end up consuming any gains you might have made, a process which will inevitably end up being replicated even in the enlightened and much reviled (by the left) west. Leftists believe me to be a conservative reationary, conservatives call me a progressive swine, I'm quite content to watch all of you idiots get hoisted by your own petards.
It's funny that you make it political. Your colors are showing
I'm no leftist. I would classify myself as socially liberal, for sure, however, I'm as capitalist as the next guy.
Both leftists and conservatives should call you what you are- A person who thinks only in partisanship. The very problems of the world for you can't be seen as anything but right-wing or left-wing.
I don't care who Big Oil votes for today. Their loyalty lies only in the price of their commodity. They have no ideology beyond that. But they and their blind supporters (which admittedly do tend to be conservative, however, that's simply because that's who the conservative football team is playing for right now. It could change next election.) are the opposing side I referred to.
Dry fact sadly. The reality is that the information I linked to above comes as a major shock to many anthropogenic global warming proponents when it should already be widely known, one fellow I was discussing it with lately proudly declared that we're going through the quickest global warming in 45 million years while earnestly claiming the imprimatur of science. Ask yourself why that might be the case.
Erm. Ignorance by people on my side of the debate certainly doesn't debunk my side of the debate. Since the information you pulled was from a panel that can most certainly be characterized as an "anthropogenic global warming proponent," I think that makes your paragraph entirely circuitous.
The problem is people who regard this notion as a good thing and refer to human civilisation as an infection.
Only when it behaves as such. The Earth is our host. If we seek to alter its ecosphere uncontrolled, then we most certainly are an infection. If we seek equilibrium and stability, we're not.
Who do you refer to when you say "our"?
I refer to any of the people who are not included in the group of people who believe that we should pull every fucking ounce of carbon sequestered in the dirt and inject it wholesale into the extant cycle. You'd think the opposed group of people would be small, as that viewpoint is shamelessly reckless and narrow, but it's not. Legislatively speaking, it's quite massive. Moneyed interests and all that.
Your weak link here is the assumption that science is in any way clear about what caused relatively recent drastic climate adjustments. Which leads us inevitably to the conclusion that we can't really go making any definitive statements about the comparitively placid warming we're currently experiencing.
Poppycock. Sure, it's no slam dunk, but forensic experts often determine the trajectory of a bullet without ever seeing it, either. I suppose you're going to argue that CFCs weren't causing ozone depletion, as well. After all, the actual full causal link there is pretty hypothetical.
And placid? Sure, compared to the leading hypothesis for the Younger Dryas ending and such, I guess it's placid. For human civilization, we may look back on it and find it to be not very placid at all.
It's much ado about not a whole lot anyway, fossil fuels are being scaled back to nothing and will be out of mass usage in a couple of generations, and no economies need be wrecked in the process either.
Yes, they are. Only by our efforts. You point to our success as evidence that we should stop? Like it won't flip? There's still a *lot* of coal left.
No one who has ever read the Bible believes that God is going to personally intervene to prevent you from screwing up in your current life
That's too much bullshit to cope with. I had to sacrifice my mod-points to tell you that you are terribly, terribly wrong. I have family in the midwest and the east coast.
My Uncle literally believes that humans can't possibly alter the climate, as God says that the Earth is unchanging. He's not a... stupid man. He retired recently from a life-long career as a network engineer at the Census Bureau; he just really believes his cultural interpretation of the vague writings in that damned book.
He absolutely believes that God does intervene to help him with his fuckups.
I know anecdotes are general pretty poor data, but he's not alone.
http://www.motherjones.com/env...
I think where you went awry, is that people who do believe in Jehovah the bipolar micromanager are actually the majority, not whatever minority you belong to.
He single-handedly blocked continuation of authorization of mass metadata collection.
That is not true.
The Freedom Act, nor any amendments that passed committee (none of them, to McConnell's dismay) allowed for that. The bill was designed to reform the metadata collection, and it did so.
Now don't get me wrong- it's awesome that he stood up and blocked this horse shit for 11 hours, but he didn't stop the tide, nor did he have the power to.
Hackers of the world, unite!