OT. Interesting link. Tar sands.

Yes, it might explode and bits fly off in different directions.

If people talk/write c*ck, then can expect to have it treated so.

Well quite. If somehow I'm persuaded that "we" must do something, and then I consider altering my life-style, what do I find? That if I stop buying home-heating oil, or dizzle for the car, I can completely f*ck up my life-style and reduce CO2 by some 0.0000000001%, or other similarly insignificant figure. Where's my motivation, eh?

You seem to have missed the point.

The OP claimed that Lukacs had no grasp of timescales. He did this by selectively quoting the first sentence of his article.

When in Lukacs' second sentence, it was clear that he did have a grasp of timescales.

So in this respect at least The OP lied. He misrepresented what Lukacs wrote.

As to the rest, whether Lukacs himself exaggerated the findings of the IPCC report of not, I'm not in any position to say, as I've not read it. Unlike you it would seem.

But then the OP didn't make this claim to start with, so that's not really relevant to the matter at hand, is it ?

Which is the willingness of people to lie, and excuse the lies of others, as you're attempting to do here, if the person they're lying about, happens to hold a diametrically opposite point of view to theirs.

michael adams

...

If absolutely everything rises by 2 degrees, then the differences remain identical.

(Of course, all sorts of things are affected by increased temperature such as rates of evaporation. It isn't only differences that matter.)

I snip, the other material is still in the thread.

I quoted him. If the article isn't consistent throughout, why is that my fault? If I highlight it, I highlight it. He's the pone who wrote a load of bollocks.

My point is that the journalist has no real demonstrable talent in conveying a message rooted in scientific procedure and evidence. If he did, he wouldn't write an introductory paragraph which set him as a hollow word projector.

There is an episode of the Simpsons where the actor Rainier Wolfcastle is in a scene where toxic waste ends up washing over him. Concerned for his safety, he is given a pair of safety goggles which he assumes will protect him. As the waves of waste wash over him, he proclaims "My Eyes! The goggles do nothing!". A futile attempt at action in the face of overwhelming adversity.

It is that sort of based-in-ignorance earnestness which articles like the one above support. It may as well have said "Don't worry about anything but carbon" whilst the greater problem carries on.

The article is nothing more than filler - it serves NO useful purpose other than to fill column inches. It contains untruths. It is riddled with the mistakes that someone who doesn't fully understand the issue being reported makes when trying to report it.

Ask yourself: If you were to write an article about that subject, would YOU write what he did? I wouldn't.

It seems that you are able to convey my ideas more concisely than me. This IS a running theme in my life ;-)

I don't think the view is diametrically opposed. My point was that this journalist can't write effectively and sets up contradictions in the article which help NO ONE'S argument. All fence-sitting mouth and no action-taking trousers.

But thanks for assuming that you know what my views are without asking.

Why the need to ask ?

Are you claiming that the following, which was posted yesterday is the work of an impostor ?

I have no doubt that humans are causing damage to the environment. It isn't limited to "warming", or climate change. What humans do with pollution in general is far worse. And sadly, people who like to rant on about how bad 'nuclear waste' is miss the point that most nuclear waste ISN'T waste, and that the total amount of polluted land or waters from nuclear activity doesn't come close to the shere volume of other s**te pumped out by various human activities. The climate change stories are simply politically convenient to raise taxes. You may say I am lazily cynical, I don't care.

Climate change is a perfect bogeyman. It is essentially unseen, and works over long timescales which humans by and large have difficulty understanding.

If we don't give a s*it about pollution (and lets face it, our demonstrable behaviour shows we don't), then why the f*ck would we care about a warming of 2 degrees celcius? Yeah, well, I personally find it difficult to be arsed in the slightest, and I actually understand some of the the issues! *some* being very important there, most people are almost perfectly disinterested and it's difficult to get them to even pay lip-service. So how do you do something about a possible danger to which essentially no one cares? Repetedly tell them it's a long term problem, and use financial carrot & stick games. But as we are finding out, these don't work either. We are a lazy species, and have become very used to comfortable warm homes, easy journeys in cars, availability of food which 150 years ago would be seen as fantasy, etc etc.

Now my point is that the writer for the guardian is either a clueless, or a disingenuous s*it. If the subject is serious, you don't treat everyone like a child, especially when the paper is supposed to be read by "smart" people. No one listens to anything if they are being condescended to.

This is NOT helped by using that childish title of "renewable" energy. We are not children, and names like that are frankly misleading. Renewable has essentially become a sysnonym for environmentally freindly, when all the available evidence points to them being anything but.

So feel free to berate me, but please understand that I shall hold contempt for similar newspaper articles due to the complete uselessness, linguisticaly incorrect, blase approach to the subject, as well as entirely missing the point about pollution.

I'm tired, so appologies if this isn't the most coherent thing you've ever read.

michael adams

...

Not always laddie. Keep on truckin'.

In message , David Paste writes

Typical Grauniad

You either can't follow a tread properly, or you are being disingenuous.

If you are not following the thread, then my previous statement about assuming you know my views are in relation to you stating my views are diametrically opposed to the journalists. You then quote my other post which shows I am not diametrically opposed.

If you are being disingenuous, then I have no desire for further interaction in this thread.