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

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #411462

Re: Smokers are smarter, I say.

Cross-posted to 6 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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.

>> 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.

> 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.

>> 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.

>> 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.

>> 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.

-- 
Bumper sticker:  "Help! She's farted and I can't get out."

Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | 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