Obamot wrote:Exnihiloest wrote:Funny how ecofascists are afraid of competition, which in their great cognitive bias they project into others.
"The dictatorship will be green or it will not be" !
![Laughing : Lol:](https://www.econologie.com/forums/images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
What is your point? Looks like you're shooting at everything that moves?
What would you do to “limit warming” Exnihiloest?
Transition to “all nuclear”? Or is it “there is no warming, go around there is nothing to do”?
The “all nuclear” is of course the ideal in terms of energy, especially with the upcoming fusion, predictable, and the fission in the meantime, still possible.
I only shoot at the fundamentalists of greening, the new religion. And I have already answered your question elsewhere, several times.
There is absolutely nothing to do against the climate, it is even desirable to do nothing, for two reasons:
- there is no climatic emergency, the apocalyptic predictions are not forecasts, they are incompatible with what allows the rudimentary level at which is still climatology as science,
- no human action can have a significant effect on the temperature (of the order of a gain of 0,2 ° in 20 years if we applied the Paris agreements to the letter) but given their colossal cost, will do much more damage to peoples by sinking the economy, especially in developing countries.
Finally, CO2 makes the planet green again, and the past has shown that periods of global warming have coincided with periods of prosperity for humans. So warming is undoubtedly desirable but the opinion of people, in ecology, we do not care, everything is dogma, it would therefore be necessary to thwart the climate, in fact a pretext wielded by the supporters of anti-development because it is sure that a fight against the climate would drastically hamper development.
The idea that:
- warming is bad
- warming is inevitable if we do nothing
- we could act against global warming
is a set of prejudices.
The problem is less with having prejudices than with assuming that others have the same when discussing a topic, which is the case with a few participants with blinders here. Then ensue the lawsuits and calumnies: "
if he does not want to fight against global warming, it is because he is a bastard who wants the death of our children "and not" it is because he does not believe in it because he has good reasons to believe that nothing that is planned will happen "or" is that he thinks it will do more damage than doing nothing".