Is this the best you could come up with?
6/27/2009 5:54:10 AM
a)Global warming = probable future collapse of the capitalist system
b)Global warming is therefore false.
I cannot see the link between a and b. I also cannot see the links between 'capitalism', 'civilisation' and 'freedom'.
6/27/2009 6:13:19 AM
What an ironic last name, Mr. Greene.
6/27/2009 7:26:36 AM
Say it to the people on the Mediterranean countries who are suffering from draught.
6/27/2009 8:33:03 AM
Some polar bears would like to have a word with you. And I assure you that we'd all delight in watching that "conversation".
6/27/2009 9:42:54 AM
Come visit Iqaluit.
6/27/2009 11:32:02 AM
Global warming is a poor label applied to the phenomena of global climate change.
Global climate change is an ongoing disaster that is disrupting whole civilizations.
6/27/2009 2:09:48 PM
So it's a lie, and then it's a stupid theory. If it's a lie it's not a theory, so it can't be a stupid theory. If it's a theory it's not a lie.
So which is it?
6/27/2009 2:59:38 PM
Even if global warming were a lie, our current "civilised" lifestyle of wantonly pissing away the energy of finite fossil resources on decadent trivialities would remain unsustainable. (Patio heaters, FFS! Is their thermal efficiency even measurable?) Both fossil and fissile fuel deposits and reserves will have fallen to crisis levels, if not been depleted entirely, within either the lifespan of my own generation or the one following it at the very latest, at the current rate of consumption. The technological change required to avert global warming, should it exist, is essentially the same as that which must be adopted anyway in order to deal with non-renewable fuel depletion, which is an absolute certainty. Pascal's wager this ain't; the only sane course of action is absolutely obvious.
6/27/2009 3:32:38 PM
I'm not anything close to an economist (economics is so not my subject), but I can't see how developing new technologies is going to destroy capitalism, since many new technologies have been developed over the last couple of centuries and it's still here.
6/27/2009 8:11:10 PM
The proof can be found in the research, but since you can't even spell the small, easy words, it's clear you wouldn't be able to comprehend the more difficult ones you'd need to understand global warming. Maybe you should think about just trusting all of the (many) people who are smarter than you are on this one.
6/28/2009 6:56:41 AM
Mmmmm who should I believe - scientists and experts from accross the world who's life's work is researching the subject who have a wealth of evidence for their claims, or a random bloke on the comments section of the BBC news site who hasn't backed up his argument in anyway?
6/29/2009 2:28:45 AM
Really, this is the BBC's fault. If you put up a section that says "Have Your Say" you're all but seducing the whack-jobs.
As for Ron, well, there's nothing to say other than Haldol will work wonders for you.
6/29/2009 9:18:46 AM
Climate change is a fact. The earth has gone through periods of both heating and cooling as a natural cycle, involving things like natural green house gases, volcanism and sun-spot activity. Global Climate change will always occur and there is nothing we as humans can do to effect it.
What I do have a problem with is the so-called "man-made" global warming. That is FAR from 'settled science'. There are as many scientists against it as there are for it.
Don't get me wrong - I think we should develop alternate means of fuel to wean ourselves from fossil fuels: wind, solar, nuclear, fission - all should be explored & developed. We should also do our part (as a species) to not damage the earth.
If this were in Amercia instead of from a BBC site, I would think that Mr. Greene is referring to the Cap & Trade plan that was approved by the House on Friday & goes before the Senate soon. There seems to be a lot of hidden energy taxes that will get passed on to the American consumer, least when we can afford it. It's also sad that our Congress-men and -women have not takent he time to read the 1200 page bill and are just going to vote on it.
6/29/2009 11:10:43 AM
I agree with Brain in a jar.
Even if global warming were a lie, it is obvious we are still harming our planet: destroying rain forests, harmful pesticides, polluting our oceans, massive trash dumps, etcetera.
If urban sprawl, rivers that catch on fire, noise pollution, air pollution and the asthma it causes, and everything else are byproducts of our CIVILIZED lifestyle, we'd be better off with out it (civilization, that is).
6/30/2009 2:51:22 PM
You're kidding, right?
We live in a deeply wild capitalism, far away from something that could be called "normal" capitalism, if it's possible, but i don't think so, because capitalism in it's pure essence is based on the social disequilibrium.
As the word 'disequilibrium' says, it's is not something perfect, and for us, time and space dependant beings, we evolve. Having light as the most perfect physical thing, we have to become it.
For knowing how to become light, we have to evolve, because at this moment we don't have capacity to understand this senses.
6/30/2009 5:51:50 PM
David B."Where is the proof of their stupid theory."
(Source: NASA GISS)
And no, it's not the Sun, stupid.
(Source: NASA GISS)
7/3/2009 3:49:10 PM
Shane, I'm not an opponent of mechanised society, in fact I fully support it (most of your points are fairly obviously valid based on common knowledge and are long-closed debates, but your condemnation of pesticides I find questionable). I feel, however, that the mark of real technological civilisation is not the power it can bring to bear, but the efficiency with which it does so. Power without efficiency is, I think, a good working definition of decadence (when, that is, greater efficiency is actually attainable).
The fundamental problem is that our society is one which lives for the present or the extremely short-term future, like an animal, and when one does that, all that matters is indeed how much power and how many resources can be supplied for immediate consumption; how much of either will be left tomorrow, and what we'll do then, doesn't come into it. As soon as one looks to the future, sustainability becomes crucial, and efficiency is the way to achieve it.
This is an expression of what many would agree is the greatest evolutionary accomplishment of man, that of conscious self-determination extending an arbitrary distance into the future (some would even say that, fully realised, this would mark the obsolescence and cessation of our natural evolution), guaranteeing the species' survival indefinitely; and yet our current society and many of the individuals in it, if they ever were capable of this, do not do so, forgetting or never learning how or even preferring not to, regressing to the level of dumb beasts living by instinct moment to moment, looking ahead to merely a fraction of their own lifetimes, if at all, let alone as far as the lifetimes of their descendants. (The fundamentalist religions are largely a close variant of this - they puport to look to the future, moreover with perfect accuracy, but declare that everything has been decided and preset and nothing need be done, and god makes all the long-term decisions for us anyway, so the effect is largely the same - complacency, and concern only with the simple and immediate, even though it may typically, paradoxically be done in the name of eternal life!)
7/5/2009 4:44:05 PM
Who the fuck would benefit from that?
12/4/2012 11:29:00 AM