Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • "Since pacifists have more freedom of action in countries where traces of democracy survive, pacifism can act more effectively against democracy than for it. Objectively, the pacifist is pro-Nazi." -George Orwell, 1941

    Similarly, those who wanted to do exactly nothing about Saddam Hussein, were objectively, pro-Bathist.

    • Well, here's one way to look at it. This summer around 10,000 people (this is a conservative estimate based solely on some undertakers, the total will be higher) died in France alone, not to mention the rest of the EU, due to global warming entailed by CO2 emissions. Which country produces half of the world's CO2 emissions for 5% of its population? How many casulties does one thing need make to count as a WMD? Should one support a war to gain access to the means of producing more emissions?

      --

      -- Robin Berjon [berjon.com]

      • This summer around 10,000 people (this is a conservative estimate based solely on some undertakers, the total will be higher) died in France alone, not to mention the rest of the EU, due to global warming entailed by CO2 emissions.

        That's cute speculation, but doesn't do much to encourage intelligent and interesting conversation. The actual fact is that no one knows what causes global warming. It is entirely possible that emissions have absolutely nothing to do with it. Oh, but then we wouldn't have any
        • Cute speculation? Please. We may differ in our opinions but there are limits to buying every single part of what those that you may agree with argue. Did I blame you? See above, see latest entry.

          --

          -- Robin Berjon [berjon.com]

          • Sorry about "cute speculation," but you were assuming as scientific fact something that is not. Scientific fact is that we do not know what causes global warming. It could very well be that it is 99+ percent "natural," a cyclical event. We do not know, and it is irresponsible IMO to treat it as fact based on entirely circumstantial evidence.
            • Well, the fact that the sun comes up every morning isn't a scientific fact either, it could happen to just be the way gravity's been working since we started measuring it. Scientists that claim that there is no link between greenhouse gases and global warming pretty much have the same position as those that still claim that smoking doesn't cause cancer, except that the name of the company changes to one in a different lobby.

              --

              -- Robin Berjon [berjon.com]

              • Scientists that claim that there is no link between greenhouse gases and global warming pretty much have the same position as those that still claim that smoking doesn't cause cancer, except that the name of the company changes to one in a different lobby.

                First, the comparison just doesn't hold. For cancer, we have had extensive studies with control groups etc., data that goes far beyond what we have for global warming. That's the difficult part: we have extremely limited data and no control group.

                Second, I never said "greenhouse gases" were not a cause of global warming. CO2 emissions are not necessarily the most significant greenhouse gas, as many greenhouse gases are created "naturally."