Post reply

Reply to the message by dhw

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> DAVID: [i]You short-change our innate resilience. From Erectus to Sapiens we overcame all challenges.[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]Sorry, but erectus didn’t make it. But yes indeed, I hope that our innate resilience and ingenuity will enable us to create new forms of fuel and modes of transport and agriculture to put an end to the damage being caused by current fuels and methods. I’m pleased that you have recognized all the dangers, and that you recognize the need for us to make the necessary changes. I find that far more reassuring than your earlier focus on distorted interpretations and statistics. [/i] :-) 
> 
> DAVID: [i]I don't focus on the doom and gloom folks as you do[/i].   ;-) 
> 
> Initially, you tried to deny climate change and focused on all the distortions and unprovable predictions made by the “doom and gloom folks”. However, you have now acknowledged the threats posed by current practices, have praised your own country for taking steps to reduce the dangers, have criticized other countries who are ignoring the dangers, and have agreed with me that there has to be a balance between averting environmental disaster and averting social and economic disaster. In view of these agreements, I would say we are both focusing on exactly the same situation and recommending exactly the same solution. Why are you so reluctant to agree with me even though you agree with me? :-)