Re: Smokers are smarter, I say.

From	"James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com>
Newsgroups	comp.os.linux.advocacy, sci.physics, alt.privacy.anon-server, comp.sys.mac.system, alt.comp.os.windows-10, alt.cellular-phone-tech
Subject	Re: Smokers are smarter, I say.
Date	2017-04-25 22:31 +0100
Organization	~
Message-ID	<op.yy9srjzbjs98qf@red.lan> (permalink)
References	(15 earlier) <D524E34D.A1B1B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <op.yy9mdtgyjs98qf@red.lan> <D524F59E.A1B79%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <op.yy9qhlrgjs98qf@red.lan> <D5250545.A1BAB%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>

Cross-posted to 6 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 21:53:09 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> On 4/25/17, 1:42 PM, in article op.yy9qhlrgjs98qf@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.
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>> If it warms up the planet, so what?
>>>
>>> Famine. War. Increased storms. Etc.
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> It doesn't matter what you believe or how much money governments waste on it.
>> The fact remains we will burn all the fossil fuels at some point, so if you
>> believe all this shit, you might as well go commit suicide.
>
> Believe what... that we should not socialize the costs of carbon use?

That there's a problem using carbon at all.

-- 
A male gynecologist is like an auto mechanic who never owned a car.

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