Post reply

Reply to the message by David Turell

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:

> > [b]Balance of Nature: Theology
> > 
> > God and evolution[/b]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Per Adler God is not human in any way. He gave us the brains to create all the above attributes on our own.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: I wish you would stop drawing Adler into the discussion. It is totally absurd for you to list some of your God’s possible human attributes and then tell us God is not human in any way. And your “mimicry” idea is absurd. Once more, either the Creator passed some of his own attributes onto his creations, or he didn’t. 
> 
>  I told you above He did it indirectly: our brain gave us the ability to create all those attributes on  our own.
> > 
> > [b]Balance of Nature: human[/b]
> > 
> > dhw:  In view of your misrepresentation of my arguments (see below), I’ll cut most of yesterday’s exchanges.
> > 
> > dhw: [i]You have just agreed that India and China should switch, and Brazil should emulate your NA loggers by replanting. Are they or are they not causing damage to the environment?[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]I'll go far to agree they are altering their climate.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: In this context, does it not occur to you that climate changes over such massive expanses might influence climate elsewhere?
> 
> Don't make the common mistake. Climate is not local weather.
> > 
> > DAVID: I must stay pragmatic with my country and reject all the UN foisted panic.
> > 
> > dhw: Rejecting the panic should not mean ignoring the current realities listed above, and your country is actively encouraging continuation of these practices by wrecking all hope of international cooperation.
> 
> The USA record of carbon control is very good. Why bother with Paris if the giants, India and China, ignore all the rules?
> > 
> > [b]Climate discussion at a psychological level[/b]
> > 
> > Quote: [i]Eowyn was a run of the mill storm, the sort which has happened many times in the past.
> > "But it certainly proves the point of what I have been saying for years now – that the Met Office’s naming of storms and the use of recently introduced clifftop and hilltop sites to produce scary headlines has now created an atmosphere of hysteria, upon which the corrupt media feed.
> > There is no evidence, none whatsoever, that climate change is disrupting the food supply or causing hunger or malnutrition in Latin America.[/i]" 
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]no wonder dhw is so panicky.
> > [/i]
> > DAVID: [i]Again the truth is distorted to insist upon urgency. Proceeding at a pragmatic pace is reasonable.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw:  I wish you would read what I write instead of picking on examples I have never mentioned (storms, food supply, hunger), repeating my proposal as if it was yours, and covering your head-in-the-sand approach by pretending mine is “panicky”. I have dismissed prophecies about the future, which nobody can know, and have scrupulously listed my causes of concern: present use of fossil fuels, deforestation, methods of transportation and agriculture [b]which are all poisoning the air, earth and water on which we depend[/b]. You agree that these are dangerous, accepted my list, praised your NA loggers for reforestation, and wished the Indians and Chinese would end their dependence on coal. I have called for “[b][i]a balance between the need to avoid environmental disaster and the need to avoid social and economic disaster[/i][/b]” with countries “[b]switching as quickly as pragmatically possible rather than as slowly as they like[/b]”. Again you agree, except that you want “[i]a [b]slow[/b] reasonable economic response[/i]”, and are happy to wreck the Paris Agreement, which offers the only possible route to international cooperation and instead encourages nations to do what they like – as trumpeted by your President. Please stop pretending that concern over current practices, which you share with me, are signs of panic on my part, and that “as quickly as pragmatically possible” = panic-stricken urgency.
> 
> I have agreed with you to proceed with a pragmatic pace which cannot be speedy as so many social and economic factors must be considered. The rush to electrify automobiles and  trucks has already been shown to create more CO2 than less. Hydrogen is a dangerous solution but may be possible. We cannot get rid of the energy requirement of our civilization and electricity, in the main. must be generated