|
hayesism (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@Thrashaero "Tell me then, what is the purpose of denying the scientific consensus of climate change vs. every other unsolidified theory?"I'll repeat: "I don't have selective scepticism; there are countless theories that I'm sceptical about."There is also no such thing as a scientific consensus on climate change. There has never been any kind of poll to suggest that; it's an unsubstantiated claim disproved by the Oregon Petition, Leipzig Declaration, and SASGW.
hayesism (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@Thrashaero What do fossil fuels have to do with armed services? Sure, they use them, but damn near every industry does. That's the biggest non-sequitur I've ever heard.Lapdog for oil tycoons? Couldn't I just as easily tell you to be a lapdog for solar tycoons?"maybe you're just stupid." I've addressed everything you've said, only I used proper punctuation and didn't resort to the tellingly weak "vested interests" argument. Or the new crown prince of stupid, the "go join the army" argument.
xxMafia101 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
0:27 You are correct on how the genetic code can evolve. We see proof in this based on the enviroment we grow up in. However, I would not say it evolves from purely natural means...
hayesism (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@Thrashaero Fantastic. The second that solar power becomes cheaper than fossil fuels, I'll be the first to support it. I wouldn't continue to pay for the more expensive (ie, less efficient) fuel, that is retarded. By the same logic, it's retarded to support renewables that are more expensive today.
ValChronification (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@Thrashaero ... subparts that interlock and function together to achieve goals, ala Irreducible Complexity. Design may be an illusion, but it's a strong one to our minds, and it *should* be entirely understandable to you why it takes hold with so many. But no, you'll continue to ridicule. I'm done with it. I understand that religious faith is intolerable, but the design vs evolution argument itself is fascinating. The tone adopted by you guys is just annoying as hell though.
Thrashaero (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@ValChronification no, it doesn't hold. It seems to, to the untrained eye. But it's simply the concept of emergence taken at face value, without accounting for the constituents that compose such face value. They have no depth. They're like children who think that a man in a monster outfit is actually a monster. It may be bewildering to see the complexity of life and the beauty of scenery. However, we know that everything can be simplified into subparts.
Thrashaero (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@hayesism and lastly, by all means, if you believe in fossil fuels so much. Go down to your local armed services recruiting office. Or otherwise become another lapdog politician for oil tycoons. You've got it down pat. Maybe there's already a vested interest to be seen behind these discussions...hmmm.. or maybe you're just stupid.
Thrashaero (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@hayesism also you're comparing the established prevalence of an infrastructure built on fossil fuels which has managed to make itself cheaper over the decades, with the high entry cost to renewables. once renewables replace all this dirty, ever scarce bullshit we're using now, you'll be eating crow when you see the return on the investment. But go ahead and be happy paying your $4 a gallon and all the prices of everything else going up as a result. Just don't be surprised others wont.
Thrashaero (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@hayesism you're confusing established economy of what's cheap with energy efficiency. When you're going to run out, destroy the atmosphere, is the energy capacity of fossil fuels really that important to you? Oh, but you think there are no significant tradeoffs with fossil fuels vs renewables...so it seems. I wouldn't switch to electric heating if I'm already on natural gas, but in the long run, having an energy efficient house with geothermal/solar/wind would be the smartest option.
Thrashaero (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@hayesism I am well aware of the energy capacity of fossil fuels. However, they're non-renewable. Duh. Given they are in their infancy, renewables are going to be expensive to get onto the grid. But they pay for themselves. You may pay 5,000 or so for a wind turbine for your house, but within a few years it has paid for itself, releases no greenhouse gases, and there is never a shortage of wind. There is a limited supply of fossil fuels. Stop playing semantics and shallow economics. |
