eclectron wrote:Exnihiloest wrote:The primaries, followers of the lynching, never find solutions, they only stir up debates.
This is what you do, lynch above, the environmentalists.
What solutions do you bring as a "liberal" friend, a friend of the wallet instead of the heart and instead of common sense?
As always "Your" liberal solution is:
1) to deny the problem,
2) then to admit it but to consider that it is not so serious,
3) then consider it serious but there is time,
4) and finally it is serious and time is short but we will find a technological and marketable solution, of course
...
Your clichés and your calumnies ("friend of the wallet"!) Are of no use in a debate which should be only scientific. It is because I worry about the future for my children that I castigate the new ideology-religion which is being established and which will sooner or later see its Stalinists if we let it happen, much worse than pollution or the climate. .
Problems have been denied in the past, and fortunately, because it was not, like this ranting of forerunners of environmentalists, who in the 19th century were worried about the increase in horse-drawn traffic, and had calculated the height of dung that would pile up in cities and cause serious public health problems. Obviously, none of this has happened. Rebelotte with the trains, at 100 km / h the travelers would go crazy, not to mention the problem of the cows who would watch them pass ...
The question is not even to know that there are pollution problems, living pollutes and the better we live the more we pollute, but to weigh the pros and cons between the advantages that polluting solutions give us and the disadvantages, even the damage possibly much worse, that we would have to abandon them or replace them by others. Shouting that liberals want the planet dead or don't give a damn about future generations is silly, and assuming that those labeled "liberal" by a judgment as preemptory as it is arbitrary, really are!
Like those 500 scientists who recently wrote to the United Nations about global warming (Disaster-human-natural / the-tale-of-warming-and-the-fight-against-the-co2-t15854-420.html # p374093), I notice that it is in all fields that ecologism has become a political subject and a pretext against liberalism or capitalism, without scientific reference or only through selection. Obviously you are no exception to the rule, sticking your little labels like "liberal" on people. Ouh, already that I was a non-human with Gadgetdebois, here I am surely the devil if I am "liberal".
Your two positions confirm my fear that environmentalism will only become a political ideology, a sort of remake of communism, with the same intolerance.
When will the eco-gulag for deviance, where we crowd people like me, skeptical about the effects of anthropogenic warming? Will you wait to win an election (given how the environmentalists have gone about it in France it is unlikely) or do you think you will end up forcing your ecological but pseudo-ecological ideas by force?
The "friends of the heart and not of the wallet", that you believe to be, have always done more damage in the companies than they solved, quite simply because they use in the wallet of the others and impoverish everyone. Environmental measures such as carbon neutrality amount to robbing populations of a wealth that they could have had, by implementing extremely expensive solutions, all for a result that was calculated to be zero, and with a questionable goal, the warming is not necessarily harmful, and CO2 a benefit.
