On 07/12/15 23:13, Bob wrote:
On 06/12/2015 23:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/12/15 21:45, wrote:
On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 7:29:07 PM UTC, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
What the Greens profiteers and political left say
=================================================

You forgot to add every scientific institute on the planet to that.

They are owned by the political left dummy.

How does that work then?

That's the problem with trying to discuss anything with people like you.
You know you are always going to reach a point where they pull out the
giant conspiracy card.

Its effects would be mostly positive.

This seems to be one of the favourite claims of Matt Ridley and Nigel
Lawson and cronies. Big fan of them are you? Ridley bases his opinion
on Richard Tol's work, which is hardly watertight but even he admits
that it is only positive up to 1.5 deg C, something that Ridley and
that shower seem to gloss over.

Oh dear. All received wisdom. no science and ad hominem attacks.


Are you really so blind to your own approach? I'm only responding in kind.

OK, so where is the science that it will be mostly positive? As I said,
I am aware of some economic arguments from the likes of Tol, and as I
said, even he says, based on his own (disputed) analysis, that "The
initial impacts of climate change may well be positive. In the long run,
the negative impacts dominate the positive ones."


And nothing but p[roof by assertion to back it up.,

You may think science is a matter of faith, belief and opinion, but
reality will turn and bite your balls every time



--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.