Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #105504

Re: Smokers are smarter, I say.

Cross-posted to 6 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 4/25/17, 1:38 PM, in article op.yy9p9wdyjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 20:46:22 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 4/25/17, 12:14 PM, in article op.yy9mdtgyjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>> 
>> ...
>>>>>> I am fine with people having different views of the world even if I
>>>>>> disagree
>>>>>> with them.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'm not.  People who believe in the greenhouse effect are fucking it up
>>>>> for
>>>>> the rest of us with stupid carbon credit legislation and emissions
>>>>> standards
>>>>> for cars.
>>>> 
>>>> I disagree with the idea of socializing the costs of carbon and think those
>>>> who use it should pay the costs of the damage it does. It is rather amazing
>>>> how conservatives tend to want FAR more socialization of costs than even
>>>> Sanders who labels himself as a Democratic Socialist.
>>> 
>>> Carbon does not cause damage.
>> 
>> All evidence shows this is not true, so to try to push this idea you have to
>> explain why the evidence is wrong.
> 
> Just done that below, don't interrupt.

You did not explain why we should ignore all evidence, nor why it is wrong.

We really will never reach agreement here: I do not think the cost of carbon
pollution should be socialized, you follow those who think it should be and
use denial of evidence to push that.

Could be you are just more into socialism than I am.

>>> Think about it, all we're doing is putting the carbon back into the
>>> atmosphere that was there before it was formed into coal and oil.
>> 
>> Right: we are altering the environment by getting ancient stores of carbon
>> and putting them into the atmosphere. This is leading to changes in the
>> atmosphere. It is pretty much common sense but, of course, there is massive
>> amounts of scientific evidence backing the types of changes.
> 
> Changing it to the way it was before those deposits were made, by plant and
> animal life which clearly survived ok.

What do you mean by "survived ok" and whom do you think was doing the
surviving the last time the CO2 levels were as high as they are now?

And if you want to look back to how things were then, the oceans were
something like 100 feet higher than they are now (give or take). This means
most coastal cities around the planet could not exist (and that is where the
majority of humans live).

>> Some who want to socialize the costs of these changes lie and deny them.
>> Some others are foolish enough to believe those who push such lies. But,
>> still, we have enough access to information where there is no good excuse to
>> believe them.
>> 
>> Man-made global climate change is real beyond any reasonable doubt. Denial
>> does not change it.
> 
> It's about as real as the existence of god.  If you believe it you're no
> better than religious nutters.

I am speaking of science, based on evidence. You ignore such to promote
socialism of the costs of pollution. Again, we will not reach agreement on
this -- I will never accept that form of socialism.

>>> Net result - more CO2, plants get bigger, more crop yields.  This is a good
>>> thing and we should let it continue.
>> 
>> <https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm>
>> 
>> We can look at all 194 myths they have listed on their site, if you like,
>> but that is not going to convince me to ignore the science as you are saying
>> it has with you.
> 
> The plants lived just fine before coal and oil deposits were made.  The
> evidence is there in history.  We are not making a new climate, we are
> returning it to whe way it was.  This is indisputable.

And that is your reason for wanting to socialize the costs. OK. I STILL do
not agree with doing so.

>>> If it warms up the planet, so what?
>> 
>> Famine. War. Increased storms. Etc.
> 
> Pull that out of a hat did you?  Warmer climate would mean some countries like
> the UK would be able to grow oranges and so forth.  Sure, Africa might get too
> hot.  But countries that are currently too cold would now support farming.

I look forward to you showing the scientific, scholarly articles to back
this (not really, I know you never will).

>>> It may well avert the next ice age.  Worst case scenario, different
>>> countries have perfect growing climates, so different countries grow the
>>> crops, no big deal.
>> 
>> While we can make things up like that I prefer to look to the science.
> 
> There WILL be ice ages.  If global warming is true, it will counteract them.

And that is why you think we should socialize the costs of carbon. Fair
enough though I do not agree we should do so.

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

Back to comp.sys.mac.system | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-25 18:11 +0100
  Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-25 11:28 -0700
    Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-25 20:14 +0100
      Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-25 12:46 -0700
        Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-25 21:38 +0100
          Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-25 13:51 -0700
          Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-25 18:00 -0400
            Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-25 15:19 -0700
        Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-25 21:42 +0100
          Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-25 13:53 -0700
            Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-25 22:31 +0100
              Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-25 14:37 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-25 23:31 +0100
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-25 15:39 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-26 00:19 +0100
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-25 16:37 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2017-04-25 22:14 -0500
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-25 21:33 -0700
    Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2017-04-25 18:39 -0500
      Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-25 16:49 -0700

csiph-web