Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #386 –
Among others, I gave you links to papers by Lindzen… (But you no longer "like" him… )
What about him? Do you have something to actually say?
Your bugaboo ("warming") is supposedly replaced by "climate change" — I take it?
No. What I'm saying is that the greenhouse effect should never have been replaced by warming. You can read this in the very first page of this thread, and I have been consistent with this throughout. But your reading comprehension is as it is...
Anglo-centric? You mean, you'd kill most of the world's current population — to satisfy your "way" of looking at the world?
No. I recommend this: Either use proper (or at least immediately recognisable descriptive) terms, or else define your terms. If you do neither, you are guilty of obfuscation. For example, Negro is the right word for the African race, "black" is a politically correct obfuscation that does not fit most languages of the world. Greenhouse effect is the scientific term, provided that you want to talk science, whereas global warming and climate change are a deviation, signalling that you don't want to talk science. And Anglo-Americans are full of it.
Ersi--- you might want to re-think a few things. Suppose you're on the South Side of Chicago and you call somebody a "Negro". Got your running shoes on? You're gonna need them--- trust me on this.
About the other stuff---- Bull Malarkey. Double Bull Malarkey. "Greenhouse Gasses" "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" all mean about the same thing these days. At least they do the way they're getting thrown around in these discussions here and elsewhere.
You wanna get rid of "Greenhouse Gasses"? You'll have to eliminate all life on Earth. "Global Warming"? You'll certainly have to get rid of every modern device since the invention of--- hey, Og just discovered he can make fire! "Climate Change"? Uh---- I don't know how you stop the Earth from doing what it has been doing since the planet came together as one cohesive body. It's always been going from warm to cool to warm to cool and so on.
I would submit here that industrial farming, for all the bad rap it gets, may leave the human race in a better position to adapt to change than subsistence farming does. Of course, in order to do this industrial farming itself has to be able to adapt--- change is gonna happen and there's not a lot you and I can do to stop it.
Right now we have the ability-- poorly managed I'll admit but we have it-- to feed people all over the world. On your subsistence farm, depending only on your own abilities--- you're subject to floods, drought, bugs, vandals and I don't know what else that can decimate crops. Industrial farms are subject to the same thing of course--- but large-scale farming that covers an enormous area can absorb trouble a little better simply because of the "economy of scale".