GuyGadeboisLeRetour wrote:(Bozo does not know what "documents, proofs and testimonies" mean ... Wonderful piss trick ...)
I know what that means, I asked you who was this "we" who produced them?
GuyGadeboisLeRetour wrote:(Bozo does not know what "documents, proofs and testimonies" mean ... Wonderful piss trick ...)
humus wrote:ABC2019 wrote:I said nothing about coal, you are responding to your imaginary ghosts, I quoted words from climatologists of the IPCC, who say that there is no extinction of humanity or collapse of society because of RC to fear, and you do not answer it. You only feed yourself to the media discourse that you drink in a loop.
The imaginary phantom is the excerpt from the very real article you cited.
At length of post you offer us the fallacious, the misguided and twisted reason, which borders on madness.
I will go to Izentrop's good advice and stop speaking to you.
humus wrote:...
At length of post you offer us the fallacious, the misguided and twisted reason, which borders on madness.
Exnihiloest wrote:On the contrary. Unlike you who take up the climate chants of the new religion like an altar boy, ABC provides us with reasons to doubt by references to studies or observational data that do not agree with what is said about the climate. .
Your repeated argument is to stick your simplistic labels on it as "negationist" and to accuse it of lying ("spurious", your expression) rather than to invalidate the arguments presented. This is a sign that you are incapable of it, and that you are swapping the scientific debate for a clan ideological posture, so much easier to maintain, but without any relevance to the substance of the debate.
humus wrote:It is your right to think so.
ABC2019 makes fallacious remarks because they have the illusion, the appearance of the real thing, but are not. The reason in the worst she can do ....
Ex: voluntary decrease is not good because nobody wants it.
Personally, if I had a real choice, if the facts weren't what they are (climate, depletions), I wouldn't want any either.
Only here, do we observe the facts clearly, without personal or borrowed ideology?
At home and at ABC2019, It is very clear that your words are guided by the systematic rejection of anything that hinders your primary desires.
A wicked green conspiracy to return to the enviable Stone Age?
Do you sincerely think this project is exciting? or that the thurifarians are all sweet crazy good to put in the asylum?
Don't you imagine for a second that these people are willing to face reality?
Do you not for a second consider yourself being manipulated by the most powerful lobbies in the world and by your own desires?
Either we do not anticipate (if the word anticipate still has a meaning to this day) and it will be very ugly, or we anticipate and it will be better without guarantee that it is not a little ugly anyway.
To anticipate is to prepare for at least the worst.
ABC2019 wrote:[
I am still waiting for the answer to my question; do you expect what you call "anticipation" to decrease resource consumption faster, or slower, than natural depletion? I think the question is extremely simple; and if it was clear in your mind what to do because it is "common sense", the answer should be easy to give.
humus wrote:ABC2019 wrote:[
I am still waiting for the answer to my question; do you expect what you call "anticipation" to decrease resource consumption faster, or slower, than natural depletion? I think the question is extremely simple; and if it was clear in your mind what to do because it is "common sense", the answer should be easy to give.
Another absurd question since the answer is obvious to any sane mind.
Back to "Climate Change: CO2, warming, greenhouse effect ..."
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 175 guests