Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahasattva
 So you want to enact restrictions on the economy that are more strict than the Kyoto Protocols? How far back do you want to force humanity? |
I want to see us transition away from a fossil-fuel economy altogether and to a high-efficiency, low-throughput, renewable-energy economy. All of which would be steps forward, not back.
Quote:
|
How can I "now" be saying that "some of these people don't approve of the Kyoto treaty" when I stated it in the original post that began this thread?
|
The point is that you were extremely vague about what you meant, and lumped together a large number of divergent views who objected to some aspect or other of the pastiche of scientific/speculative/political views that you are labeling "the AGW dogma." Nobody who actually believes in AGW holds all of the views you are lumping together, and nobody besides a detractor would mix them into such a hodge-podge and assert that this mess is anyone's "dogma."
If you want to say that a large number of people object to the Kyoto protocol, say THAT -- do not imply that because people do so, they do not accept AGW. By that argument, I don't accept AGW myself, and of course that is nonsense.
Quote:
|
I have already supplied the list you require.
|
No you haven't, except as an unidentifiable portion of a massive list intended to give the false impression of controversy about the idea of AGW. Please separate out the names that object to the Kyoto protocol, rather than the idea of AGW. Present THAT list, not the one you presented.
Better yet, separate those names from the list you did present. Also, remove any names that have only raised questions about whether human activity is the only cause of GW, or who have speculated that GW might have some benign aspects along with the bad ones. Leave a list of people who actually believe that human activity isn't a significant cause of GW at all, or who actually believe that GW represents a net benefit.
If you do that honestly, your list will be very short.
Quote:
|
I have provided link after link to support my claims. You need to do likewise.
|
No, because we're not starting on equal ground here. You are presenting a positive claim; the burden of proof is on you, not me. I don't have to prove jack-diddly. All I'm doing is calling your own assertions into question.
Quote:
|
I consider the "peak oil" theory with a little suspicion.
|
Which says a great deal about where you're coming from.
Never mind, Mahasatva. I'm adding you to my ignore list as a propagandist who isn't worth having a discussion with. If you want to answer my assertions for the benefit of others, go ahead, but you and I are done.