Cell Whitman
(872 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-13-09 12:56 PM
Original message |
| How to Argue With a Global Warming Denier...LOL and informative |
| phantom power
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-13-09 12:58 PM
Response to Original message |
| 1. I think he could have stopped at (1). |
| Blue_Tires
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-13-09 01:00 PM
Response to Original message |
| 2. brilliant, brilliant stuff!!!!! |
|
Edited on Mon Jul-13-09 01:00 PM by Blue_Tires
:applause:
|
| Cell Whitman
(872 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-13-09 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
the author has some other stuff on the site that is also LOL.
|
| Blue_Tires
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-13-09 02:03 PM
Response to Original message |
|
you may want to cross-post this in the environmental forum
|
| orwell
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-13-09 02:12 PM
Response to Original message |
|
If we assume that the causes of global warming can be disputed (giving the opposition its main talking point at the outset) wouldn't it still be prudent to begin buying insurance in case the human/warming argument is correct? After all, the lead times in almost any atmospheric carbon reduction scenario are extremely long. Shouldn't we begin now? We regularly buy insurance on many unknown scenarios. Why not begin buying insurance on this one, which has global catastrophic consequences? It is illogical and irresponsible not to do so.
Think of the absurdity of continuing the lack of action. It is effectively betting the house on one turn of the roulette wheel. The argument should be one of proper risk management. But the powers behind the denial movement do not want you to think of this. The have framed the argument as one over competing scientific theories where they can effectively cloud the issue.
Its the insurance stupid!
|
| Cell Whitman
(872 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-13-09 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
We know we need to cut down on oil intake and we know coal releases pollution so why not work toward that end and get the bonus of helping slow GW whether you believe in it or not.
|
| HiFructosePronSyrup
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-13-09 02:14 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Boy, if I had a nickel for every time I heard that from one of these losers...
|
| Mrs. Overall
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-13-09 02:18 PM
Response to Original message |
| 6. I'm still musing on the fact that only 6% of US scientists are republicans-- |
|
that fact right there speaks volumes about their scientific comprehension.
|
| SpiralHawk
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-13-09 05:41 PM
Response to Original message |
| conscious evolution
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-13-09 05:50 PM
Response to Original message |
| Cell Whitman
(872 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-13-09 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
|
you read down that far. Funny stuff.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts)     |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 03:13 PM
Response to Original message |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
