climategateFollow

Ace! So assuming that the planet doesn't reach the absolute SAFE limit doing its own warming thing, when it does it every few thousand years or so, and leaves itself a considerable safety margin, the bit that we're doing (or maybe, perhaps doing) will still be well within the limits for life to continue uninterupted into the future??

Sweet!

Now lets start applying ourselves to fixing the things that we do that we KNOW are harming our environment.

Yeah, no shit. The page you linked to was a press release by Inhofe which cited another release by Inhofe. I was going through all the stupidity in Release #1 and, in doing so, linked to Release #2 since Release #1 cited it.

Here, let me try to make this as simple as possible. I mean, I thought before with the graphics and circling and text hints and all made it simple but you're obviously still confused.

Here's your "collection of information": Link
Here's an item which is cited in your "collection of information" and which I had linked to directly while dicussing your "collection of information": Link

See anything similar about them? Maybe where they both say "Majority Press Release"? And who was the chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works? Senator Inhofe. These were both press releases from Senator Inhofe. I mean, I can't even imagine what you're trying to convince us is true in the face of obvious evidence that these are press releases from Senator Inhofe... it says so right on them!


No, that's what we call "Gbaji is having some bizarrely hard time following along and will try to spin this in any way possible to avoid admitting that he uses press releases from bought senators as evidence"

Keep on tryin', champ!

Edited, Dec 17th 2009 9:43pm by Jophiel

That "long list" was a press release by Senator Inhofe. In which he misrepresents what the base sources are saying? You realize this, right?

Just say "yes". "Yes, Jophiel, I realize that my 'list of sources' was a press release put out by Senator Inhofe."

Edited, Dec 17th 2009 10:02pm by Jophiel

We already are. Regardless of the amount to which man is contributing to climate change, pretty much every single measure being debated by governments, and pretty much every single measure being reccomended to individuals, is beneficial to the environment. Reucing energy consumption, reducing how much carbon we emit, reducing waste, increasing public transport and rail use, green technologies, renewables, all of things are beneficial regardless of climate change.

As an environmentalist, as a hippy, as a peace-loving-Earth-worshipping-tofu-eating-harmony-seeking human being, it's a cause you should be embracing wholeheartedly.

Sometimes, it's useful to look at the people who happen to share your position on a particular topic. If that's not enough of a clue...

You didn't really understand a word Red wrote, did you?

Good thing that both the man-made climate change issue and the dwindling finite resources issue can be resolved using the same steps.

Is it really even worth bothering? Would you honestly believe a fact with nigh endless evidence stacked up underneath it if it disagreed with your world view/ideology?

Yeah, you should have continued reading that thread where I continued to respond to many other statements from that list.

Man, do you ever tire of being so wrong?

Ah, Gbaji... you're so funny. Fine, fine. Look, everyone else can read that thread. Everyone else can see your frantic scrambling now to disavow the press release you held so near and dear to your heart back then. So keep on denying and I'll keep on laughing. There's no need for me to reply to your next "No, I didn't really use some industry shill's list!!" comment.

I tried to tell him, I really did.

Lol. Your understanding of the planets resources is woeful.

Oh, he's right, though the timescale for "renewable" in there seems to be "one century or less".

You want to cut it down to "one generation or less", then wood needs to be knocked over onto the "not really renewable in a timely fashion" list, but both water and food are still firmly in the "renewable resources" list.

As far as land... it's entirely possible to increase the amount of livable land (effectively), but the results aren't necessarily what any of you would want to live in (read: arcologies on substantially non-arable land). At that point... yep, we're still at, for the most part, three substantially renewable resources out of five.