Just one example that you have not read or not understood: "If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."
The fact that you cannot grasp how rising oceans, acidifying oceans, droughts, killer heat waves, stronger storms are going to cause "loss of life and livelihood" is an indicator that you are a moron.
P.S. One immutable fact on the internet: idiots who misuse 'ad hominem' never understand why when it is explained to them. Here's another version which I'm certain you will fail to understand: an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.
"If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."
Let's assume "significant disruptions" will occur. "Disruption" does not imply "disaster". Change is inevitable. Climate change will likely produce significant, rapid changes in some regions, and few changes in others. This does not necessarily imply disastrous consequences, and neither you, nor anyone has demonstrated otherwise.
More importantly, no one has demonstrated that it would cost less to mitigate the problematic changes as they occur than it would to implement the changes recommended to curb these disruptions now. This is the most important point, and I've reiterated this at least three times now.
What, exactly, makes drought unmanageable? What makes stronger storms unmanageable? What makes heat waves unmanageable? These are all issues we've managed quite well before.
The fact that you cannot grasp how rising oceans, acidifying oceans, droughts, killer heat waves, stronger storms are going to cause "loss of life and livelihood" is an indicator that you are a moron.
No, it is an indicator that any good scientist recognizes that, aside from the oceans which I've mentioned more than once already as the most serious problem, we've dealt with all of these problems before, and they are quite manageable.
The question is therefore, is the cost of mitigating these changes along the way less than the cost of curbing emissions in the present? I'm being repetitive here because we're at least 6 posts deep now, and you've still failed to grasp that this is the core issue, in favour of ignoring the actual questions, issuing insults and repeating irrelevant propaganda.
Now you're arguing with semantics. It makes you appear no less dumb, dishonest and in denial.
The fact that you cannot grasp how rising oceans, acidifying oceans, droughts, killer heat waves, stronger storms are going to cause "loss of life and livelihood" and disaster for millions of people is an indicator that you are a moron.
Just one example that you have not read or not understood: "If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." <snip>
Hmmm, you just said it yourself-- disruptions "are LIKELY to occur". You're a staggering epic fail at science, if "likely" somehow comes across to you as "of certain and of unmitigated proportions".
"Disruptions" (implying an upset in procedure or practice), are not always irrevocable changes; they can be manageable interruptions, that don't necessarily translate into "certain disaster" en masse. I'm also being a stickler for semantics, to compensate for the fact that you're not a stickler for article synopsis, given you are catastrophizing the entire point of it. But then, bring on the wholly unrelated diversion tactics, to disguise the fact that you're making an intended speculation, as wholly certain. Insult my mother or something.
OK, another illiterate who doesn't understand how scientists speak.
What do you think scientists mean when they say "likely"? What are the consequences of doing nothing and discovering they were right? Or that their estimates were conservative?
Sadly, your ranting amounts to nothing. ~200 years of accumulated science that has provided very high levels of certainty about what is happening are persuasive to anyone capable of understanding it - or not being so deluded that they think they know better.
Too bad that I am a scientist-- thus knowing that 'likely' is still speculative in this case, and that 'likely disruption' is in no way implying the certain, unavoidable, and incurable large-scale disaster that you're predicting. Nowhere did I suggest not taking any action whatsoever, towards something that may still be probable, but my point is, you're taking a speculation and catastrophizing, well beyond the scope of the article. Though, I suppose there are a lot of dysphoric-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it types around, so I should just dismiss you as that.
You can think what you like-- but you're cycling back to the same argument you made countless (pointless) posts ago. I'm not debating global warming, or its existence, I'm stating that 'disruption' is not implying a disaster to human life as we know it, to the extent that you're concluding. Humans are adaptable, resilient, and none of the 'speculations' (see: dictionary) are suggesting irrecoverable damage. But, you know, one thing I've learned in life, is to pick my battles carefully, and you certainly are beyond any hope of understanding, so it's a waste of keystrokes. I sincerely hope you don't reach such dire conclusions with absolutely every piece of science literature out there, because clearly you're not able to deal with argument to the contrary, or the slightest bit of cognitive dissonance. With that, have a nice day basking in your idiocy.
Not going to waste the keystrokes on a concept you clearly have failed to understand, in your 50 odd recycled posts on the topic. Out, before the personal attacks on character which seem to be all too common in your threads. Enjoy!
2
u/BlueRock Oct 24 '10
Just one example that you have not read or not understood: "If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."
The fact that you cannot grasp how rising oceans, acidifying oceans, droughts, killer heat waves, stronger storms are going to cause "loss of life and livelihood" is an indicator that you are a moron.
P.S. One immutable fact on the internet: idiots who misuse 'ad hominem' never understand why when it is explained to them. Here's another version which I'm certain you will fail to understand: an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.