Quote from: Spendulus on November 16, 2018, 03:27:05 PM

Quote from: Astargath on November 16, 2018, 03:17:43 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on November 16, 2018, 03:14:29 PM

Quote from: Astargath on November 16, 2018, 01:20:57 PM

....
''Forced population reduction.'' The fuck? Come one bro, just admit most CO2 reduction solutions are good, you sound like a conspiracy nutjob.

You are now ridiculing the answer? It's YOUR ANSWER. You wanted proof that your use of "ALL" was ridiculous, you got it. Ridicule the wackos who propose such things, not me.

"ALL" is inclusive of all answers, dumbass. I invited you to change your assertion, didn't I?

I'm not the one who said that btw. Your argument is trash, change the all to most then? Does it work now? Nutjob

No, of course it does not work. Neither is my argument trash. You want to support the "ALL", how many more examples of nut job radical environmentalists do you want?

The Atlantic isn't exactly a trash publication.

....Hillary Clinton in 2009, when as Secretary of State she acknowledged the overpopulation issue during a discussion with Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh. Clinton praised another panelist for noting "that it's rather odd to talk about climate change and what we must do to stop and prevent the ill effects without talking about population and family planning."

"And yet, we talk about these things in very separate and often unconnected ways," Clinton added.

Right-wing critics pounced, with the Alex Jones-run Info Wars calling her comments "Malthusian."

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/11/the-climate-change-solution-no-one-will-talk-about/382197/

Your problem, not mine. Obviously you need to correct the position or concede your position was wrong. "Most" is also ridiculous. Think about it, that implies this, directly:

"Most proposed solutions to global warming should be implemented as public policy."

That's what you really want to say?

It's ridiculous. First you start by praising science, and I remind you of the scientific methods. Then you praise "ALL SOLUTIONS," many of which were totally idiotic. Then you go to "Most solutions," which shows zero critical thinking.

You don't think that perhaps careful engineering studies would be useful, would you? Again, the need for critical thinking and skeptical viewpoints is required.

So you don't think getting rid of CO2 is good? The original point was: ''Lets say climate change didn't exist. The steps taken to solve climate change would still create sustainable, renewable energy systems'' I didn't say that but I understood it, you obviously did not.

The point was that the steps taken to solve climate change are beneficial nonetheless, so why would the ''fake it''?