The fable of anthropogenic warming and the fight against CO2

[izentrop]

It was predictable, maybe not the same study but the same people. https://tamino.wordpress.com/2019/09/29 ... yance/amp/

[Obamot]

It's a false problem of ostriches who put their heads in the sand (again ...)

We are still far from the maximum temperature of the Pleistocene. But...

8643278E-AC40-41B6-96D3-48F7F6923026.jpeg (236.36 Kio) Consulté 1668 fois

But if we reduce our footprint, we also conserve our resources, which is by far the best thing to do ... It's more a question of climatosepticism, but the fact of admitting that we are exhausting our resources at- beyond reason, is a matter of common sense. This exhaustion is neither contestable nor contested.

[Exnihiloest]

...
But if we reduce our footprint, we also conserve our resources ...

There is no point in preserving resources that we need and which are likely to be no longer needed in the future, a question of technological evolution.

In the 19th century there was a need for much more wood and charcoal than today. And as the ecological ideology did not yet exist, they were exploited to the great satisfaction of the populations. As a result, forests in France represented only half of what we have today, but at least the needs were covered. Then plastic replaced wood for the manufacture of innumerable objects, gas or electricity replaced coal for heating or industry. In the 19th century, what would have been the interest in saving wood or charcoal, which is much less needed today? Do more tuberculosis patients because of poorly heated damp housing? Increase infant mortality ?! In each era, its resources to be exploited.

The idea that we should be concerned about future generations is typical of an absence of humanism, humanism being faith in man and in the capacity of each generation to continue its evolution, of which technical progress is a part. . When you do not have this confidence in man, it becomes totally inconsistent to have confidence in your own generation: why think that the solutions that you would keep or prepare for future generations would be better than those that future generations will be? capable of inventing?

This claim of today's ecological generation to be the doctrinaire guarantor of the good of future generations is not only stupid for the reason mentioned, but counterproductive because it penalizes its own generation by hindering the exploitation of its resources. . By penalizing it, it undermines its own foundations, it undermines progress and handicaps future generations.

[Paul72]

Wow, I've never seen such twisted reasoning to explain how great oil is and that we must continue to mortgage our future since it is future generations who will find solutions to the problems we have created.

[Obamot]

I didn't get much of its gall ... I was just saying that if we used less fuel we would preserve this resource ...

The rest is bullshit

[phil59]

So let's say that if we have someone on the side of the road bleeding out, we have to trust them, that they will know how to fend for themselves?

The pb is all the same that it is necessary to spare the cabbage and the goat.

And finding a solution is going to be rather complicated.

Man must live, yes, but not at any cost.

The pb there is that there are a lot of people on earth.

You may have a huge cake, if there are too many people, the portions become miserable. Or you give reasonable shares, but the majority will get nothing ....

And as we plunder this poor "unhappy", she will have more and more difficulties to maintain herself, and "to feed" (not only in the food sense) her inhabitants ....

[Obamot]

The idea that we should be concerned about future generations is typical of an absence of humanism,

Do you hear Exnihiloest? It seems that the egoist here is only YOU .. and not the “others” ...

Well wow, the monomaniac sophisms, it goes more ... What a time!

[ABC2019]

It was predictable, maybe not the same study but the same people. https://tamino.wordpress.com/2019/09/29 ... yance/amp/

Are you competent enough yourself to know if Tamino or McKitrick / Christy are right or wrong?

[Obamot]

It was predictable, maybe not the same study but the same people.

You are simply NOT competent enough yourself to know if it would be Tamino or McKitrick / Christy who are wrong (or right)! Or whoever it would be

[Exnihiloest]

Wow, I've never seen such twisted reasoning to explain how great oil is and that we must continue to mortgage our future since it is future generations who will find solutions to the problems we have created.

For millennia, it has been like this, and it has worked perfectly, each generation improves its lot using the means at its disposal.

Only a part of the current generation, including environmentalists in particular, believes that it must enter into a crusade, sclerosis the present and draw plans on the comet in the names of the whims that it has for the future of future generations which they do not won't give a fuck. It's just as silly to think that the generations of the 21st century would need those of the 19th to solve their problems!