Perhaps if you took a moment to learn what's happening, you might not make such a donkey out of yourself.
I did, and I don't buy her. Again though, I did not try to attack her, and I already stated posting that cut was more of a guilty-pleasure-thing. I meant it more jokingly as an example for not getting the desired outcome leading to making it look like the opposing force must be corrupt.
What she wants, jackhole, is for world leaders to listen to scientists on matters of the sciences. She's "tear-filled" because she's angry - and she's angry because it's necessary for her to sail across the Atlantic Ocean (because she won't fly) to appear before the UN to tell them this.
Perhaps if you took a moment to learn what's happening, you might not make such a donkey out of yourself.
First of all, let's get back to the original post about Discovery/Tardigrade case being dismissed. I agree with the judge's decision and am glad it is over. Secondly, it is not about world leaders not listening to scientists on matters of the sciences. It is about is the science those scientists using correct. Are the models accurate? Do they take into consideration other data that goes against their conclusions? Could more damage from hurricanes and other natural disasters be not from them being more powerful but that more people and houses are in certain areas than they used to or are made with flimsy materials as mentioned in an article in Reason magazine? There was a time when scientists freaked out about global cooling and there being another ice age, it did not happen and was mentioned in Newsweek. I am a skeptic on such matters, I even had to read An Inconvenient Truth for high school. I am not dumb, I just disagree. I am all for recycling, cleaning the oceans of plastics, etc. Those who disagree are not donkeys but are skeptics. I am not against science, I am against scientism however. Sadly, there are some dunces but most are not and are smart people. Thanks.
What she wants, jackhole, is for world leaders to listen to scientists on matters of the sciences. She's "tear-filled" because she's angry - and she's angry because it's necessary for her to sail across the Atlantic Ocean (because she won't fly) to appear before the UN to tell them this.
Perhaps if you took a moment to learn what's happening, you might not make such a donkey out of yourself.
Right...because a custom boat with all the tech to make the trip safe for her to sail over there is so much better for the environment than a commercial flight where most of the environmental impact has already been paid. Man, people are so fraking stupid about actual environmentalism. Maybe if they made a giant sail boat that can actually transport hundred of people at a time it would almost make sense...other than the exponential cost (I am talking environmentally) in stocking processed food that will feed that many people for that long of a trip. This is a pure play on emotion...and science and facts have NOTHING to do with it. Fact is, what she did INCREASED carbon emissions over her just taking a flight over.
My problem with her trip is how it will have a higher carbon footprint than if she just took a commercial flight due to having to fly a crew to sail the boat back. At least it is not as bad as someone flying on a Private Plane to a climate summit or having a beachfront mansion burning a lot of carbon dioxide while advocating for Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change.
Most politicians have never listened to the Scientists on Climate Change. Far too many politicians believe in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change while Scientists have differing opinions on the severity on Climate Change from we must do something to save the Earth from rising carbon dioxide emissions to rising carbon dioxide emissions are good for the planet.
Scientists disagree all the time on how much influence humans have on the climate and what will happen to the Earth in the next 100 years if we continue to emit carbon dioxide at our current pace. There is a huge difference between 97% of Scientists believe that the climate is changing and we have some influence on the climate due to releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and 97% of Scientists believe that the Earth is doomed unless something is done right now and it is all our fault.
As far as Climate Change goes it could be we are already doomed and we just don't know it to there will be some inconvenience caused by it to it will not harm us at all or it is of benefit to us. Personally, I believe that we must explore every option to make the vast majority of the Earth habitable. If it requires melting the ice caps for people to live comfortably in Antarctica, then it should be considered. We could always ship the excess water on Earth to Mars for a terraforming operation to prevent flooding caused by melting ice caps.
Folks, I merely tried making a simple joke in a different context. The context was 'not getting what one wants' in regards to verdicts and such regulations.
Comments
I did, and I don't buy her. Again though, I did not try to attack her, and I already stated posting that cut was more of a guilty-pleasure-thing. I meant it more jokingly as an example for not getting the desired outcome leading to making it look like the opposing force must be corrupt.
That's my impression as well, but there's still the benefit of the doubt.
First of all, let's get back to the original post about Discovery/Tardigrade case being dismissed. I agree with the judge's decision and am glad it is over. Secondly, it is not about world leaders not listening to scientists on matters of the sciences. It is about is the science those scientists using correct. Are the models accurate? Do they take into consideration other data that goes against their conclusions? Could more damage from hurricanes and other natural disasters be not from them being more powerful but that more people and houses are in certain areas than they used to or are made with flimsy materials as mentioned in an article in Reason magazine? There was a time when scientists freaked out about global cooling and there being another ice age, it did not happen and was mentioned in Newsweek. I am a skeptic on such matters, I even had to read An Inconvenient Truth for high school. I am not dumb, I just disagree. I am all for recycling, cleaning the oceans of plastics, etc. Those who disagree are not donkeys but are skeptics. I am not against science, I am against scientism however. Sadly, there are some dunces but most are not and are smart people. Thanks.
My problem with her trip is how it will have a higher carbon footprint than if she just took a commercial flight due to having to fly a crew to sail the boat back. At least it is not as bad as someone flying on a Private Plane to a climate summit or having a beachfront mansion burning a lot of carbon dioxide while advocating for Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change.
Most politicians have never listened to the Scientists on Climate Change. Far too many politicians believe in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change while Scientists have differing opinions on the severity on Climate Change from we must do something to save the Earth from rising carbon dioxide emissions to rising carbon dioxide emissions are good for the planet.
Scientists disagree all the time on how much influence humans have on the climate and what will happen to the Earth in the next 100 years if we continue to emit carbon dioxide at our current pace. There is a huge difference between 97% of Scientists believe that the climate is changing and we have some influence on the climate due to releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and 97% of Scientists believe that the Earth is doomed unless something is done right now and it is all our fault.
As far as Climate Change goes it could be we are already doomed and we just don't know it to there will be some inconvenience caused by it to it will not harm us at all or it is of benefit to us. Personally, I believe that we must explore every option to make the vast majority of the Earth habitable. If it requires melting the ice caps for people to live comfortably in Antarctica, then it should be considered. We could always ship the excess water on Earth to Mars for a terraforming operation to prevent flooding caused by melting ice caps.
Folks, I merely tried making a simple joke in a different context. The context was 'not getting what one wants' in regards to verdicts and such regulations.
...THEN THE WINGED HUSSARS ARRIVED!