Ta da >:-}

If I was Truly Great I'd agree that humans are an infection in the body of the living planet.

Reply to
Tom Del Rosso
Loading thread data ...

You are the "critical-thinking" target of today >:-}

Killfile the piece-a-shit. ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      | 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson

There are other reasons and conservatives should know them. Nixon observed that Russia isn't expansionist because it's Communist but because it's their tradition, as we've been seeing lately. The truth is Obama was Russia's greatest enabler and they only started making an issue of Russia when they started telling these lies about Russia and Trump.

But the thing that I wouldn't have expected is that conservatives would take the role of Kremlin apologist simply because the left flipped or pretended to flip on Russia. Most conservatives don't but your comments sound like that.

Reply to
Tom Del Rosso

Last year when I quoted the above piece of environmentalist dogma I thought Bill would deny they ever said it, and instead he embraced it as scientifically valid.

None of this is about persuading anyone. It's just about finding out what people think. It's revealing.

Reply to
Tom Del Rosso

In that picture you look like Shelby Foote lecturing on the Civil War.

Reply to
Tom Del Rosso

--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via  
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other  
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Cursitor Doom

I've been meaning to take that paddle-wheel lecture tour down the Ohio and Mississippi (*). I will add that to my "bucket list".

(*) A high school buddy's father was a steam boat captain pushing barges on the Ohio and Mississippi. ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      | 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson

It's not cynical at all. It's a statement of fact.

No, it's 100% political. There is no science to it.

Reply to
krw

Yep, the "All Slavs must answer to Moscow" policy has been a Russian tradition surely since the time of Ivan the Terrible, or before.

I would say Obama was "pragmatic" on Russia - he was certainly never silly enough to treat Putin like a potential buddy as Trump appeared to do in various statements prior to the election.

Reply to
bitrex

formatting link

The initial human population was of the order of 100,000, but we proved to be able to exploit a wide range of environments, so there were a couple of million of us around at the stage where we invented agriculture, roughly 10 ,000 years ago.

That allowed us to get up to about 400 million about a thousand years ago, when we got onto inventing technology, which has now got us up to about six billion.

That's the way an infection works, and it does seem to be offering us the c hance to hog enough of the planets resources to degrade the place to the de triment of not just us but pretty much every other species as well.

Getting rid of all humans would solve that particular problem, but it is wh at a mathematician would call a trivial solution. If we could control our n umbers and dump rather less CO2 into the atmosphere every year we could set up a stable and sustainable situation without killing off most of us.

If that's what Tom Del Rosso is objecting to, he's a bit silly.

Mostly what it reveals is that most people can't be bothered thinking, whic h is old news, but perhaps not to Tom Del Rosso, who doesn't seem to know m uch.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

All human beings are. The aim is to convert them to symbiots that help regulate the running of the living planet so that it stays stable and provides a benign environment for most species, including us, if not the small pox and Ebola viruses.

Since Cursitor Doom doesn't seem to be able to comprehend that the's a problem that needs solving, he's part of the problem rather than part of the solution, and probably needs to be removed by the cultural equivalent of a killer T-cell.

Since I haven't removed him, I'm not it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

It's a statement of an opinion that krw happens to share. In reality, this doensn't make it any kind of "fact", but krw doesn't live in reality.

No science that krw can follow, which leaves a lot of science that somebody less cognitively damaged could get their head around.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

Trump's statements were merely unskilled attempts at being diplomatic, and he's not the first elected leader to do that.

Obama's statement to Medvedev "I can be more flexible after the election" was halfway between obsequious and treasonous. His Iran deal was such an obvious signal of retreat that Russian forces started to arrive in Syria one day after the deal was final, and the Russians never felt emboldened or "enabled" to deploy forces in the Middle East before. When Mitt Romney said in a debate that Russia was the biggest threat, Obama said, "The 80's called and they want their foreign policy back. Obama cut our nuclear force so much and gave Russia such an advantage that several smaller countries started looking at making their own nukes. That's not what I'd call pragmatic.

Reply to
Tom Del Rosso

Interesting. So, you're checking the 'pollitical' box and unchecking the 'science' box. That means you're safe?

Two hundred nations are in the Paris agreement, so it's still global. Holocaust victims agree, political disasters can be hard to survive. Flight, however, was sometimes possible for them, because the polity wasn't global.

A good assessment of 'science' is beyond you, but there's still a chance you can survive. How is that going to happen?

Reply to
whit3rd

No, it means we are in danger but the danger comes from political forces.

They're in the agreement because they profit from it at our expense.

The idea of global redistribution of wealth seems to make incredulous the same people who vote for it. And it's not just money. There was a prominent member of Obama's State Department (forgot the name) who said back in 2008 that it's only fair for smaller nations to have nuclear weapons too. Hence the Iran deal of course.

Reply to
Tom Del Rosso

Do explain how. Despite your unfortunate ignorance, anthropogenic global wa rming is real, and the US is responsible for about 25% of all the CO2 emiss ions so far, which means it is the biggest profit taker from the business o f burning fossil carbon for fuel.

Slowing down our collective CO2 emissions is of global benefit - the US has more to do than pretty much everybody else, but it also gets just as much advantage out of that reduction as anybody else.

Global problems work like that.

There's no global redistribution of wealth involved. The oil producers loos e money on the deal, because their market has to shrink - but burning hydro carbons is a pretty wasteful way of exploiting that particular chemical res ource anyway.

The Iran deal was all about stopping Iran from producing nuclear weapons an d weapons grade uranium - if not in the long term, which Israel, India, Pak istan and North Korea have shown to be impractical - but at least in the near fut ure.

Fairness doesn't come into it. If you want a stop a nation from having that particular weapon of mass destruction you have to invade and occupy the pl ace.

The last time that was tried was with Irak, and that didn't go well, even t hough they didn't actually have any weapons of mass destruction to fight of f the invasion.

You really don't know what you are talking about, do you.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

You usually at least attempt to make sense. Not here.

Every one of them looking for a payout.

More nonsense.

I guess you simply insist on talking nonsense.

Reply to
krw

Krw's capacity to see sense in other people's posts is limited - they have to agree exactly with krw's proposition before he can agree with their point of view.

That's not what's going on. Every last one of them wants less anthropogenic global warming - and getting that would be a payout of sorts, but it's going to be a long time coming.

Krw hasn't noticed that you can't go any place on earth that isn't being affected by anthropogenic global warming. The effects do vary from place to place so you can flee from localised manifestations, which rather vitiates whit3rd's point.

Quite a few people post stuff that krw can't follow, and writes off a nonsense. It's a transparent trick to make krw feel less like the idiot he is.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.