Done. ng, ng.

Interesting twist. Climate science deniers are now victims? Look at it this way TallMike. If your skepticism is well founded and it turns out to be correct, what do we gain as a whole? Cleaner air? Better quality of life? Less wars over a natural resource? No. What if you are wrong and the science is correct and accurate? What do we lose if we do nothing due to the political powers that be's "skepticism"? Disease, Famine, War, Flooded cities, etc.... Who gains financially from doing nothing, the extraction industries. Who suffers financially from doing something, the extraction industries. Who pushes and lobbies and propagandizes the skepticism, the extraction industries. It is good to question everything and I support your right to do just that.

Done

done

Tuco, folks who complain are not problem solvers. They are either aligned with a political or financial interest who is not an incumbent OR they are looking to have govt create an artificial barrier in the market place. Solendra is all you need to know about "very concerned citizens". Problem solvers are folks who understand evolution and see history as a progression of solutions to problems. Whiners and complainers are victims; they can't see any future so they just complain waiting for "The End". Who are problem solvers? Guys like Musk. He understand CLEARLY that in the next 10-20 years solar power will full the needs of every large footpring commercial property and every SFD in America. His concern is NOT getting rid of the incumbents. THAT NEVER HAPPENS. Incumbents go away because they evolutionarily displaced by innocation and problem solvers who see THEN TAKE ACTION; google buggy whips. The incessant complaining in akin to Grammy always telling you how bad her goiters are and that her Hemorrhoids medication never works...there is no cure for her, only complaints. Climate changers which is the stupidest oxymoronic label in the history of the planet because the history of the planet IS CLIMATE CHANGE, are the same. They are not able to see what is taking place, they can ONLY SEE THE PAST. But that is good in many ways because they are leaving the opportunity open for those who can see to make zhit tons of money capturing the opportunity OF CHANGE...in this example (and long pointed diatribe) the evolving solution(s) which will supplant the current energy sources for this period of time.

Done

Not so bad, but I was missing line crosshatches today. 16.

Well Ik911,as a matter of fact hemorrhoid medication doesn't work. Try it. Just gets stuck on your teeth.

ROFLMAO

tuco, you do yourself a disservice by pretending that the example you cited of who would gain or lose from attempts to stop climate change (the extraction industries) is an argument against what I have already posted. Or did you misunderstand what I wrote?: "The history of science is so riddled with complete nonsense promoted by wealth, political influence and even religion, that a large dose of skepticism can be very useful in the long run." True skepticism works both ways. When you point to the interests of the extraction industries and yet fail to mention the contrary interests of many foreign governments and corporations and some American and foreign politicians and financiers, it is you who are practicing the same deception by omission that you are perpetually railing against. But no matter how you look at it, it would be naive to believe that climate science is pure, unadulterated science. Any proposals for prevention, reduction or amelioration of climate change should be considered in that light.

tuco, on another subject, do you realize that the argument you used about making the choice between fighting or not fighting against climate change is essentially a rhetorical trick? Superficially it appears valid because of its resemblance to Pascal's Wager, a famous example in the history of philosophy about the choice between believing or not believing in God. Pascal's Wager was resolved by recognizing eternal happiness as infinitely more valuable than the sacrifices that would be made as part of believing. But in the climate change issue there is nothing of infinite value to be considered, and so the decision to fight or not fight against climate change requires consideration of other factors. And you left some out, including but not limited to the probabilities of various outcomes if we don't fight, and if we do, and the probabilities of various outcomes if we fight this way, or that way, or another way, and the costs of the various methods of fighting, and the desirability of the various possible economic, ecological and political outcomes of all the possible scenarios.

And then there is the fact that Phil posted the same argument many months ago. Just like you once posted a copy of one of my posts as if you were the author and I was the intended recipient. (I know you apologized for that, but you still did it.)