: SDF: Please move there. If CO2 is our friend, then the more the merrier, and Venus has all you want.
Glad you perceive that talking about CO2 doing this or that in isolation is nonsense, both ways.
:be such child's play that I used the same technique on a few pages of THE ULTIMATE RESOURCE II chosen at random and found Simon's text to be describable as complete nonsense.
Oh well if you found it then it must be right. Daly makes a huge leap from is (entropy) to ought, that is his error.
: SDF: So we can destroy the world's resource base and still live off of nothing for a few million years. Gee guarantees it, all you need to do is refuse to ask for scientific proof.
As long as your afraid enough to clamp down today, facts wont deserve additional research. And how do you intend to clamp down? Above you bemoan blackshirts whilst you must realise that it requires the most stringent enforcement to see that *your* ideas would be adhered to by others.
: SDF: I see, so you have a cheap, energy-efficient means of moving millions of people off-planet to another safe, habitable planet. Hurry up and make millions off of it before someone else gets the same idea!
And you claim this just cannot happen at any point in the future just as it was once nonsense that the earth went round the sun, or that man could create flying machines. I can imagine the same arrogent bull was said of every inventor in history, an expectation that mankind will stop innovating today, so that our comfortable predictions about the future can all come true.
: SDF: Gideon has already shown how the global warming disproofs are the product of hacks paid by the oil industry -- whose personal wishes do their conclusions personalize?
And you are now suggesting that all such is just personalized conclusions? hmm, interesting shift from 'i am right, they are wrong'
: SDF: And I will, CORRECTLY.
you flatter yourself.
: SDF: We should therefore be bad stewards of what is already under our dominion?
we therefore dont jump from an observation to a prescription for human behaviour.
: SDF: This would be an example of the DISPROOF of global warming? Read again what I said. I said that "an example that would disprove the notion that significant increases in CO2 content create global warming would be..."
And having to show human activity as cause.
: SDF: So we should wait until the icecaps are all melted, the wild species are all extinguished, the air is thick with the stink of burning shale-oil, and the hot spot for immigration is the Northwest Territories, before deciding anything. Full proof is fine: I'll take 99% proof.
Then why are you settling now already?
: SDF: Go back and look again. Did GH just cite the article and leave?
I responded to it.
: SDF: Gee, it's amazing that you'd parade this false caricature of the end of the Era of Cheap Oil, even though I've been citing a completely different scenario time and time again. What will happen, for those of you patient enough to sit still for a zillionth reiteration of this, is that the price of oil will go up, and it won't come down again. The oil won't dry up, but there will be less of it around, and its extraction costs will be significantly higher.
And what does not automatically follow is a collapse of the world economy.
: SDF: Well, it's time to start kicking the oil habit now. Are you interested at all in how this is going to happen? Here's an assignment for you. Detail all of the uses of fossil fuels across the globe. Now find an easy transition to a non-fossil fuel-using technology for each of them. Then, show how you're going to produce the non-fossil fuel-using technology without yourself using any fossil-fuels. Finally, show how the "natural workings of the market" is going to accomplish all of this, given an oil industry anxious to increase the depletion of oil reserves to zero as fast as possible in order to increase profits, and a consumer class anxious to buy technologies and resources at the lowest possible price. Good luck.
Why ask me? Its already being done by other people