“you WOULD want to remove the tumor that’s on your skin ”
No, I wouldn’t want to cut a big hole in my skin. I would want to heal the tumor.
“ just as you obviously want to kill off most or all of the “tumor” of humanity that’s on the Earth.”
Why do you keep claiming that it’s obvious that I’m a murderer? What have I said that indicates that I want to kill so much as a single person, much less most of humanity?
“Being unverified by YOU doesn’t make it “unverifiable”. ”
Fine, then verify it. Give me a source that I can look up, such as the name of the person who said those things.
“the environmentalists who obviously despise humanity”
I think you’re confused. Things like pollution through the use of fossil fuels and destruction of the environment through deforestation and other means is endangering the human race. It’s the environmentalists pointing this out that are trying to save humanity.
“Which of the attitudes I cited do you disagree with?”
I’ve already stated my views here in this thread, but you refuse to see it. I don’t think it will do any good, but I’ll summarize my beliefs again here:
1) That global climate change is real is beyond doubt. The only thing being debated is to what extent, if any, human activity affects that change.
2) It is also beyond doubt that the effects of climate change, such as more extreme weather and rising sea levels, will be negative for humanity.
3) The rate of global climate change is too rapid to be explained by natural means. Human activity is the primary cause of the change we currently are seeing.
4) Since human activity is the primary cause, then a change in human activity is the best remedy for the problem.
5) What I disagree with is anything you (or anyone else) post that contradicts 1), 2), 3), or 4).
“Likening humanity to a “cancer” shows misanthropy, a virulent hatred of people. The people with such an attitude obviously want to kill off most or ALL of the “tumor”. I find it interesting that you express no disagreement with this attitude or any of the other quotes I cited.”
Wow! How you got that out of anything I said is beyond me. If I were to say that I had skin cancer, would that mean that I had a virulent hatred of my skin, and wanted to kill it off?
“An irrelevant semantic point, as irrelevant as commenting on “The White House said in a statement…”
Not at all comparable. If you read somewhere “The White House said in a statement”, you can go to the official White House website and read the full statement and fact-check what you read. What you did is more like “Some unnamed person who works in the White House said…” You would have no idea whether it was the president or a cook, and you would have no way to fact-check it. But then, that’s exactly what you want, isn’t it?
“Quote by THE PEOPLE IN THE Club of Rome:”
Yep, unnamed and unverifiable.
“Here are some more quotes:”
You can quote any whack jobs you want, or take actual experts out of context as much as you want. It won’t prove anything. It would be just as easy for me to find quotes that show the opposite.
“I find it interesting that you express no disagreement with this attitude or any of the other quotes I cited.”
If that’s what you think, you totally missed the point of my post (or, more likely, didn’t bother reading it). Every statement I quoted was from the same people you quoted, and showed that those people believe that global warming is real and that we must do something about it.
The Club of Rome (not a person) – Many people have likened mankind to a cancer on the earth, which is causing potentially irreparable damage. So, what’s your point?
I have never heard of any of those people, so I had to look them up. (Btw, the Club of Rome isn’t a person.) Here’s what I found:
George Monbiot is a journalist and an environmental activist. Here are a few other things he said:
“Development which has no regard for whom or what it harms is not development. It is the opposite of progress, damaging the Earth’s capacity to support us and the rest of its living systems.”
“Why is it so easy to save the banks – but so hard to save the biosphere?”
“If global warming is not contained, the West will face a choice of a refugee crisis of unimaginable proportions, or direct complicity in crimes against humanity.”
Pentti Linkola, a Finnish “ecological philosopher” (whatever that is) was an ecofacist. Probably not a reliable source to base your views on.
I was unable to find any information on John Shuttleworth.
Amory Lovins published an article in Foreign Affairs called “Energy Strategy: The Road Not Taken?” in 1976. Lovins argued that the United States had arrived at an important crossroads and could take one of two paths. The first, supported by U.S. policy, promised a future of steadily increasing reliance on fossil fuels and nuclear fission, and had serious environmental risks… Lovins has described the “hard energy path” as involving inefficient energy use and centralized, non-renewable energy sources such as fossil fuels.
James Lovelock – Here are a few quotes I found by him:
“Esso has been the main one in America spreading the disinformation that there is no global warming problem.”
“Geological change usually takes thousands of years to happen but we are seeing the climate changing not just in our lifetimes but also year by year. "
“If a power station were to be built down the road, I’d prefer a nuclear plant over an oil burner, and definitely over a coal burner. We simply have to lessen our consumption of fossil fuels. "
That’s pretty long! I checked, and perplexity dot ai says it’s a collection of novels. The longest book in the series is A Memory of Light, which is about 362,000 words.
The world’s longest novel is In Search of Lost Time (about 1.3 million words). I haven’t read it, but what I found online indicates that the concept of redemption occurs in it. Does anyone know if it contains the word “redeem”? If it does, I’d like to see RJ try to read it. In fact, I’d like to see anybody read it.
I used to use Parkodin (a combination of Paracetamol and Codeine, not sure what it’s called in other places) when my arthritis pain got bad. Unfortunately, it doesn’t go well with the Parkinson’s drugs I now take.
“you WOULD want to remove the tumor that’s on your skin ”
No, I wouldn’t want to cut a big hole in my skin. I would want to heal the tumor.
“ just as you obviously want to kill off most or all of the “tumor” of humanity that’s on the Earth.”
Why do you keep claiming that it’s obvious that I’m a murderer? What have I said that indicates that I want to kill so much as a single person, much less most of humanity?
“Being unverified by YOU doesn’t make it “unverifiable”. ”
Fine, then verify it. Give me a source that I can look up, such as the name of the person who said those things.
“the environmentalists who obviously despise humanity”
I think you’re confused. Things like pollution through the use of fossil fuels and destruction of the environment through deforestation and other means is endangering the human race. It’s the environmentalists pointing this out that are trying to save humanity.
“Which of the attitudes I cited do you disagree with?”
I’ve already stated my views here in this thread, but you refuse to see it. I don’t think it will do any good, but I’ll summarize my beliefs again here:
1) That global climate change is real is beyond doubt. The only thing being debated is to what extent, if any, human activity affects that change.
2) It is also beyond doubt that the effects of climate change, such as more extreme weather and rising sea levels, will be negative for humanity.
3) The rate of global climate change is too rapid to be explained by natural means. Human activity is the primary cause of the change we currently are seeing.
4) Since human activity is the primary cause, then a change in human activity is the best remedy for the problem.
5) What I disagree with is anything you (or anyone else) post that contradicts 1), 2), 3), or 4).