Woland99 said:Andre Jute said:On Mar 28, 12:58 am, Woland99 <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:On Mar 27, 6:03 pm, Andre Jute <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:> In the last fortnight on most days my ride was either prevented or
> ruined by a cold wind from the North. And this has been a grim winter,
> with my central heating oil bill twice what it was last year. I
> certainly hope that after a particularly tough winter we shall not
> again soon hear from the instant short-series "experts" that we're all
> doomed because global warming is here. I say, bring on global warming,
> the sooner the better. And I've been to the Arctic. If it melts, no
> loss. Not to mention that the cold wind ruining my rides starts around
> Greenland. Time to dispense with Greenland too, don't you think?
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:> Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING..html
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:> PS Of course, next week the cycling weather will start in earnest...I
> feel it in my bones. So don't expect me to hang around arguing
> fruitlessly with the environmentalists about their religion of doom
> and gloom. I'm a Simonite: my environment is better every year, and
> has been better every year of my life, as anyone can see who keeps his
> eyes open and his brain in gear. Those of us who know better will be
> out cycling while you waste your time talking to no one.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Hmmmm - you realize of course that GLOBAL warming can result
in LOCAL cooling? I can't tell how sarcastic your post is.
Quoted message said:For those who believe in global warming in the first instance,
perhaps. Not everyone is so incompetent with statistics as Al Gore
who, standing in front of a wallsize graph showing clearly that
warming leads CO2 emissions and always has, claimed loudly, and still
claims, that CO2 causes temperature increase. When the fundamental
claim of a religion is that easily contested, its magic isn't much
chop and it had better not take Nostradamus as a middle name.
Quoted message said:Andre Jute
Cyclists don't have to be fashion victims
I do not want to start a religious war and having degree
in geophysics I do understand that cause-effect reasoning
in Earth science can be tricky
Witchdoctors make the same argument: Only I understand what the
spirits say. It's [censored]. Chaos theory cuts both ways.
Quoted message said:but which part of global
warming theory that you find may not be correct?
I just explained it. There is proof that CO2 emissions follow warming
spells. Therefore global warming is not caused by CO2 emissions.
Quoted message said:I thought it was not matter of "belief" anymore and majority
of scientists agree on it.
The guys who said the IPCC rewrote their reports to say the opposite
of what they had written were severely discouraged by having their
grants taken away, and told they couldn't sue the government. You
should just count the big names who are supposed to have signed IPCC
papers who say they never said that, or agreed to the other thing.
Anyway, a consensus of guys with grants at stake? Cive me a break. We
now tell grad students to put "environmental" in the title of their
thesis to show they're right-thinking. I can remember when I couldn't
get promoted because I was not a Keynesian -- best thing that ever
happened to me, because I instantly took my skills and judgement into
the private sector with predictable results. Twenty years later all
those fashionable Keynesians were silent and twenty years later they
were all convinced monetarists.
Quoted message said:Besides - even if you have your doubts
there was that risk management-influenced argument on Youtube
that was somewhat convincing:
It is 10 mins long and after watching it there is absolutely
nothing you can do but agree that there should be some action taken.
Try it.
Ugh. That's not risk management. That's scare-mongering of the same
sort we saw with the atom bomb (which brought world peace) and nuclear
power (which is still the only clean power that is actually
deliverable in enough megawatts). Kyoto is the most expensive guilt-
trip the world has ever seen, billions spent to show we "care"; nobody
now thinks it will work, but that too was presented as "the
precautionary principle". Try this instead: That you will die is
certain; when is uncertain and it bothers some people with not enough
to keep them occupied. A precaution against the uncertainty of your
moment of death is to cut your wrists right now -- you can act to
reduce the uncertainty to zero. Does the gain to your entirely
unnecessary peace of mind overweigh the loss to your family and
society. Jeremy Bentham is spinning in his grave. There is change in
nature; it is uncertain; the precautionary principle, risk management
does not reduce that uncertainty: it aggravates it by misdirecting
resources. The managers who consistently bring off risky decisions are
artists, not scientists. Ever hear of a work of art made by a
committee? Environmental threats are without exception created and
"managed" by committees, and at that committees with a constant
financial interest in keeping the threat alive.
The fellow in your film glides smoothly over a big lie right near the
beginning of his little story when he's standing before his 3x3 grid
of possible actions and outcomes. He says, "If we do something
significant to prevent global warming." That's the sort of lie you
hear from tele-evangelists, plastic guttering salesmen and Mormon
missionaries. He doesn't know the outcome of any of his actions, you
don't, I don't. We don't know what is "significant" action. What we do
know is that natural forces are larger than any manmade significance.
What offends me most about most environmentalists is their hubris,
their belief that they matter, that our moment in time must at all
costs be preserved, that change is evil. Their attitude is inspired by
fear, and evolution will eventually rid the genome of them. Good
riddance.
Andre Jute
Darwinist
