Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
On Microclimates
Doug Freyburger wrote:
Nad R wrote: If I understand this correctly, you think that Climate Change is a socialist plot to be used for political power? It is clear you have not read any of my posts. Thanks for the clarification on the point that you can't tell effect from cause and that you do not believe that someone can attach to an idea and use it for their own ends that don't have anything to do with that idea. And yet you report that you were raised by fundies who use exactly that strategem. Take a look at your last posting. Forty three words in one super long disjointed sentence. Your postings are difficult to read and rather cryptic. I wonder how you ever graduated from any school writing the way you do. I will not respond to your rantings until you learn to write. -- Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Microclimates
Nad R wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote: It is clear you have not read any of my posts. Take a look at your last posting. I will use smaller sentences. Sequence one. 1) Per geology life thrives in warm climates. 2) Per archeology humans thrive in warm climates. 3) The cause is irrelevant given those two points. 4) Because global warming should be beneficial what's the fuss about? Sequence two. 1) So scare mongers must do it for other reasons. 2) Scare mongers must not care about the actual topic. 3) Scare mongers tend to be collectivists. 4) Collectivists tend to dislike capitalists. 5) So scare mongers are using the topic in a political campaign. Sequence three. 1) Global warming is real. 2) Human causation is a matter of recent concensus. 3) Across history, recent concensus in science has often been wrong. 4) Why care since the predicted result is beneficial? Sequence four. 1) Fossil fuel is limited. 2) Green power includes wind, solar, hydroelectric and nuclear. 3) Wind is expensive but dropping slowly in price. 4) Solar is expensive but on an exponential curve. 5) Exponential curves can have good results, just not today. 6) The installed base of hydroelectric is nearing the maximum. 7) Hydroelectric damages cute fishees. 8) Nuclear is politically unpopular. 9) That's yet another sign the scare mongers aren't honest about their goals. 10) Developing green sources is still good because fossil fuel is limited. Conclusion. It's not about what you claim it's about. So you make up stuff about what my stance is. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Microclimates
In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote: Nad R wrote: Doug Freyburger wrote: It is clear you have not read any of my posts. Take a look at your last posting. I will use smaller sentences. This fit of pique is unworthy of you. Sequence one. 1) Per geology life thrives in warm climates. 2) Per archeology humans thrive in warm climates. 3) The cause is irrelevant given those two points. 4) Because global warming should be beneficial what's the fuss about? You know that the above are easily picked apart. Sequence two. 1) So scare mongers must do it for other reasons. 2) Scare mongers must not care about the actual topic. 3) Scare mongers tend to be collectivists. Citation please. 4) Collectivists tend to dislike capitalists. Qualified sentence. Doesn't show relationship. 5) So scare mongers are using the topic in a political campaign. I agree, but not in environmentalism. Follow the money. The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Klein http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine...ism/dp/0312427 999/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300208360&sr=1-1 Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism by Ha-Joon Chang http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans...lism/dp/B001P3 OMQY/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1301174163&sr=1-1 "A well-researched and readable case against free-trade orthodoxy." --Business Week "A lively addition to the protectionist side of the debate...well written and far more serious than most anti-globalization gibberish." -- New York Sun "Bookstore shelves are loaded with offerings by economists and commentators seeking to explain, in accessible prose, why free-trade-style globalization is desirable and even indispensable for countries the world over. Now comes the best riposte from the critics that I have seen. Readers who are leery of open-market orthodoxy will rejoice at the cogency of Bad Samaritans. Ha-Joon Chang has the credentials -- he's on the economics faculty at Cambridge University -- and the storytelling skill to make a well-informed, engaging case against the dogma propagated by globalization's cheerleaders. Believers in free trade will find that the book forces them to recalibrate and maybe even backpedal a bit....Chang's book deserves a wide readership for illuminating the need for humility about the virtues of private markets and free trade, especially in the developing world." --Paul Blustein, Washington Post "Lucid, deeply informed, and enlivened with striking illustrations, this penetrating study could be entitled "economics in the real world." Chang reveals the yawning gap between standard doctrines concerning economic development and what really has taken place from the origins of the industrial revolution until today. His incisive analysis shows how, and why, prescriptions based on reigning doctrines have caused severe harm, particularly to the most vulnerable and defenseless, and are likely to continue to do so. He goes on to provide sensible and constructive proposals, solidly based on economic theory and historical evidence, as to how the global economy could be redesigned to proceed on a far more humane and civilized course. And his warnings of what might happen if corrective action is not taken are grim and apt." - Noam Chomsky "A smart, lively, and provocative book that offers us compelling new ways of looking at globalization." --Joseph Stiglitz, 2001 Nobel Laureate in Economics (Available at better libraries near you.) Sequence three. 1) Global warming is real. 2) Human causation is a matter of recent concensus. What do you call recent? What do you call concensus? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling 3) Across history, recent concensus in science has often been wrong. Across history, recent concensus in science has often offended dogma. 4) Why care since the predicted result is beneficial? The truth, or its best estimate, is always important. Sequence four. 1) Fossil fuel is limited. 2) Green power includes wind, solar, hydroelectric and nuclear. Make an argument. What we've had so (nuclear ) far isn't "Green". 3) Wind is expensive but dropping slowly in price. 4) Solar is expensive but on an exponential curve. Ask the Japanese about how expensive nuclear is. 5) Exponential curves can have good results, just not today. Planting a garden is good. It just won't feed you on the day that you plant it. 6) The installed base of hydroelectric is nearing the maximum. Happily, tidal action can be harnessed without harm to fishees. 7) Hydroelectric damages cute edible fishees. 8) Nuclear is politically unpopular. You mean that those who may be affected by it, don't want it. 9) That's yet another sign the scare mongers aren't honest about their goals. Spell it out, would you, please. 10) Developing green sources is still good because fossil fuel is limited. Developing green (sustainable) sources is good in any event. Conclusion. It's not about what you claim it's about. So you make up stuff about what my stance is. We have a problem, let's just address the problem and not go psychoanalytical on it. -- --------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|