If you brake your leg or your neck, you should consult a quack instead of a university trained doctor of the establishment.
When the funding for tenured professors comes from the establishment which does not want truth to be explored on a particular issue (e.g. anthropogenic global warming aka man-made climate change lie that was foisted on the establishment and which 9,000 PhDs were signatories against but even that never made the news), then science within the establishment does not exist on that issue.
When some of those established engineers and professors decide instead to fund their collaboration, this is then debunked as non-science because it didn't take place within the monolith of the establishment's controlled funding model.
Logical indeed.
I know the anthropocentric logic of the quacks and truthers: taking CO2 out of the ground and put it into the athmosphere and the ocean doesn't change the climate of the athmosphere and the ocean.
Logical indeed.
Wow you just proved you are an idiot (or presumptuous which is the same thing). Do some research on the science. I did. And so did 9,000 PhDs.
Lazy people love to boast and we who are not lazy realize you are idiots. That is why you get the NWO enslavement that you deserve.
It's you who is the idiot. Not an idiot for example is Nassim Taleb:
Climate Change.
I am hyper-conservative ecologically (meaning super-Green). My position on the climate is to avoid releasing pollutants in the atmosphere, on the basis of ignorance, regardless of current expert opinion
.............
We have polluted for years, causing much damage to the environment, while the scientists currently making these complicated forecasting models were not sticking their necks out and trying to stop us from building these risks (they resemble those "risk experts" in the economic domain who fight the previous war) --these are the ones now trying to impose the solutions on us. But the skepticism about models that I propose does not lead to the same conclusions as the ones endorsed by anti-environmentalists, pro-market fundamentalists, quite the contrary: we need to be hyper-conservationists ecologically, super-Green, since we do not know what we are harming with now. That's the sound policy under ignorance and epistemic opacity. To those who say "we have no proof that we are harming nature", a sound response is "we have no proof that we are not harming nature either" --the burden of the proof is not on the ecological conservationist, but on someone disrupting an old system.http://www.blackswanreport.com/blog/2010/01/opacity-3/The assumption of either position for or against as absolute, is anti-science.
Science is the process of questioning the 'experts' and testing.
It is when we stop questioning, that science ends.
In this case you are both more right than wrong.
Climate change science is useful for statists to increase authority and that questioning this scientifically is discouraged (TPTB's point).
Avoiding pollution and waste is the key to sustainability, and so it is prudent to avoid it (Zarathustra's point).
Where you are both wrong is in recognising that these points are not necessarily in conflict.
Learn the difference between climate and environment. A dictionary can be helpful.
I was 100% correct as usual. And I didn't even present the unarguable physical science arguments that compelled me to my position on CLIMATE.
I never said a damn thing about environment. It will be rare to catch me in a category error. Yeah shitting in your backyard environment is really smart. And no one here was conflating CLIMATE with generally adverse affects to the environment such as heavy metal or bromides contamination of the fish and soils. Putting fluoride in our water which competes for the same receptors sites in the body as a necessary nutrient iodine is really smart.
Both I and Armstrong were making that distinction between climate and environment long ago.
And you are incorrect to assume that Zaradude was arguing about environment. He is not. He doesn't have a clue about making such a distinction (nor much of anything else ... I've been arguing with him for years now ...) and certainly isn't limiting his arguments to the environment.
The reason humans can't impact the CLIMATE with CO2 is because our release of CO2 is miniscule in comparison to the CO2 absorbed and released by for example the oceans due to changes in the sea temperature due to the Sun. Even volcanos release C02 faster than humans can (not sure if they release more CO2 overall over any long period but make sure you include the undersea volcanos if you try to calculate this and include all the ones we don't know exist). That Taleb didn't apparently distinguish C02 as not being a pollutant, shows that he doesn't know how to apply his Black Swan and Anti-fragility math to the real world. The risk for the Black Swan w.r.t. to C02 is the assumption that taxing carbon can't cause a massive collapse in both the economy via the concomitant corruption. Taleb should realize which side of the argument is centralized meddling in a large scale system preventing anti-fragility.
P.S. I am not angry at you, hehe, I am just making drama with my words for the fun of it.