Quote:
Originally posted by rgr22j
Who is the blind fanatic now?
Instead you choose to copy-and-paste a very small fraction of my post instead of responding with substantive debate. You scattershot inchoate sarcasm rather than discuss.
Please, do me the favor of adding me to your ignore-list. If you are willing to debate, I am here. If not, might I suggest that the "Is W. Stupid or Evil?" thread be safer and more to your liking?
-- Alvin
EDIT: "Is W. Stupid or Evil?", not "Is W. Evil or Stupid?"
|
I guess the fanatic would be the one signing petitions in mobs trying to deny science as soon as it becomes uncomfortable. Oh noes, reducing emissions with 60-80 % will hurt us, it can't be!
Sorry, but we need to be safe, not sorry, end of arguement as far as I, and the UN are conserned. The fanatics would be the ones with their heads in the sand and their ears covered who proceed to launch attacks on those with care and engagement for the future of our speices. Climate change could prove very damaging to human culture and civilization. I would rather see us spending what it takes to reduce the emissions, and find that all we got was some non-polluting non-short range damaging energy, than just ignore the data baceuse of fear and find ourselves threatened by global warming. The war in Iraq was way more expensive than creating ecological sources of power would be, and the consequenses of climate change may be much worse than some Muslim with some gas, as I have previously said.
And don't come bragging about Clinton to me, American democrats are the political match of Norwegian extreme right-wingers, while republicans blow the scale. And we have a way higher rate of living than you as well. Clinton was anti-abortion and pro-death penalty, I don't believe he has any more to add to the enviromental debate than Bush.