OT: Hurricane Maria - Science Deniers Should Skip This One

Stormin' Norman · 2017-09-18T13:07:16+00:00

Nothing is cast in stone as of yet, but this is an interesting early assessment of the storm. Science deniers should consider this to be rated "X"

Sep 18, 2017 66 Replies

Rate this thread:

gfretwell 9 years ago

I am just trying to rationalize the competing thoughts you posted. On one hand you want to cut CO2 on the other hand you seem to advocate for the dirtiest way of providing energy for the 3d world because that is how they will have to do it..

Now you are making my case that the 1st world throwing Hummers into the volcano will have no effect if the other 80% of the population is going to reenact the 19th and 20th century.

Again, it is that 3d world that seems to be driving the move to war. We certainly could have stepped away from every war since 1945 but if I said it you would be telling me about the US responsibility to be the world's policeman. For instance, I would not have intervened in Korea, Vietnam, South America, Kuwait, Bosnia, Iraq/Syria or any of those squabbles in Africa. Communism was destined to fall from it's own weight and our wars may have actually prolonged the time to that fall. I really do not care which town head we buy oil from and the winner will still be lining up to sell it to us. I also would not spend a dollar or a single American life saving Israel.

Vote

Stormin' Norman 9 years ago

Again, you have a fanciful imagination. Saying that I have advocated anything that you cannot provide a citation for, is disingenuous, if not outright lying.

If you don't understand what I am writing, it would be more productive for you to ask for clarification instead making asinine assumptions and absurd allegations.

Vote

gfretwell 9 years ago

How else can I take it when you are making the case of why the 3d world should have all of the 1st world conveniences without explaining how they can afford 22d century energy production?

Vote

Stormin' Norman 9 years ago

You are being obtuse and disingenuous. I will explain it to you again.

"Why the 3rd world should have....." What an absurd remark. How do you propose the 1.3 billion inhabitants of India or the 1.5 billion inhabitants of China be prevented from striving for, obtaining and using energy consuming devices? For that matter, just how do you propose keeping the people of any nation "down on the farm"?

The point is, people are basically the same everywhere. Most people would like to be cool when they are hot, warm when they are cold, fed when hungry, communicate with others, travel where they wish, etc.

The point is, you cannot stop the spread and advancement of technology. Hence, if people are going to consume energy, if nations are going to produce ever more energy, then, we as a species must ensure that we move towards the replacement of dirty, nonrenewable energy sources with cleaner, safe, renewable sources.

When solving problems, you eliminate the ridiculous (thermonuclear population control) and you find the solution which resolves the issue and produces the greatest ROI.

Vote

gfretwell 9 years ago

Which brings us right back to my original statement. We should be spending our money on learning how to live in a warmer world because there is nothing we can do about it unless we scrub a couple billion off the population. If you believe what Al was saying 8 years ago, we have already gone over the tipping point and all of this bullshit is moot.

Vote