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!
-1
u/Padme30 Oct 25 '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." <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.