Now there's a satellite radio monopoly. That monopoly has competition in terrestrial radio, but that hasn't improved terrestrial radio's quality, because satellite receivers are rare and expensive compared to terrestrial radio.
I wonder what would happen if the satellite network were unbundled from the content, and every media player mobile phone could receive satellite signals.
No, you claimed "people" were demanding a "climate Nuremburg" for people who merely disagreed with Global Warming science. Roberts was referring to people in Big Tobacco who actively campaigned to coverup and suppress Global Warming science, not merely disagreed with it, to protect their own lethal industry.
I never said no one ever said it. I just asked for a citation instead of oversimplified, self-serving evasion of the context that shows who exactly are the deniers in question - not mere "disagreers".
And yes, I did then say that
Greenhouse denial can be at least as evil and murderous as Holocaust denial, though probably more murderous if not quite as evil.
The Greenhouse is likely to kill many more than the maximum 20-50 million who were killed even indirectly by the Holocaust. And wipe out many more peoples, along the coasts, in new deserts and in the way of the refugees, than were targeted by the Holocaust. There's no possible rigorous comparison of the evil, though intentionally exterminating over 12 million people, including half the world's Jews, is comparable to even unintentionally preventing the avoidance of a Greenhouse that crashes the whole civilization, potentially killing billions. People who worked to hide Nazi genocide were war criminals. People who work to deny the Greenhouse, to stop mitigation, without some rational exoneration (being honestly wrong, not just dishonest), are in the same league, even if it's not a "war".
So what this disagreement between us boils down to is that you are trying to say that since one person (or maybe even a few) have demonized the worst systematic Greenhouse deniers, that all who merely disagree with some scientific basis are being demonized. And in fact you are now trying to put responsibility on me to equate the Greenhouse with the Holocaust, just because I agree that the respective denial of each has some commonality.
That's a lot of crap. And it's what passes for "disagrement" in the Greenhouse denial community. Because it's what's manufactured daily by the Greenhouse denial industry.
Nice ego projector you've got all fired up. Somehow it's so powerful that it can tell whether your nearly flawless self parody comment was not possibly the funniest comment that I have ever seen on Slashdot.
Wrong, but funnier than ever. Let's have another spitball of wisdom from your clown act.
I've been unwillingly subsidizing the Ogalalla Aquifer development six ways from Sunday. Its their mismanagement that is leading to its collapse. I'm still doing everything I can to help ensure the disaster is managed properly, despite the hopelessness of the task. But when it does collapse, like the Gulf levees despite the money and even effort (I lived in New Orleans for years) from distant Yankees among my neighbors, those people are going to ripple over here. Where we've got a whole Hudson we've actually cleaned up in my lifetime. So while I've been installing as furiously as possible, I'm configured for war if that's what's coming across the network.
Yeah. And I was sickened when I heard Bush reassure America that Lott's front porch would be promptly rebuilt.
I expect it has: now the finest front porch on the Gulf Coast, compared to the rubble. Courtesy of Lott's Bush and our tax dollars. Even more sickening. Getting used to it is half the battle. The other half is not getting complacent.
No, you in fact are the one who hasn't bothered to look first. You brought it up, and now you won't back it up. You claim laziness, but who knows? Who cares?
I'll find out on my own. But don't expect me to lift a finger to share it with you.
Oh, I see. It even makes your.sig make sense. You're one of these Star Wars scaredy cats. You don't understand relative risks at all. You never do anything to cope with real risks. All you do is react to the political news you consume. You think that fact needs to be balanced in decisionmaking by fancy.
The fact is that your politics is in deep conflict with reality. Your spoiled, blythe attitude towards the real threats gets in the way. You like to consider yourself a "skeptic", but you're really just a "doubter". Easy for you, because others are doing the work. Harder work because we have to put up with the empty complaints of people like you, lawyering the science until it doesn't scare you anymore.
I have the right to defend myself from incoming hordes of overpopulation refugees. When the Southwest US collapses as the Ogalalla Aquifer runs dry because those greedheads couldn't conserve in the desert, I'm not going to let their right to "refuge" interfere with my right to survive.
Not all human rights are compatible with each other. That gets cruelly revealed when the surplus runs out, and not everyone can survive on what's left anymore.
No, you just demonstrated that you think hyperbole means "I don't like it". Your comment was nearly perfect, and now you're just pushing the laugh riot to hysterical limits.
While saying absolutely nothing, yet still being wrong. You're a miracle!
Let's see, your debian fanboy site is in Russia, and you say "US-UK-Israel: the real axis of Evil". You're learning everything about America from _Bowling for Columbine_.
Have you crossed AIDS off your list? Are you crossing Climate Change off your list?
Who cares what's on your list, when all you've got is nationalist hatred?
Oh, I've admitted mistakes before when I've made them, including in posts to Slashdot.
Meanwhile, Anonymous lying Coward, you're not even specific about what I said that you claim is a lie. And of course you don't bother to show how it is a lie. You don't even bother to have an identifiable Slashdot ID. Why shouldn't you spit words like "rational" that you have no qualification to use?
I guess you think saying "overweight" means "self-mutilation".
When too many people for resources/infrastructure to support with the rest of their human rights, like nutrition, are alive somewhere, that's "overpopulation".
Is your position some kind of crytobuddhist countermathusianism, or just an extreme example of an antiabortion worldview?
It's BS because "Global Cooling" was a theory held by a small number of scientists that a hysterical popular press promoted beyond all proportion, without real scientific consensus. The number of scientific papers and news reports can be counted on your fingers and toes, compared to the many thousands of pages of Global Warming science, now with compelling scientific consensus.
Yet it's used to deny the extremely broad scientific consensus, on much more data and much more research, with longer-tested models, that humans are tipping Global Warming over the edge.
More to the point, the exhaustive consensus of qualified scientists says that reducing CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations has a good chance to slow or stop the climate change, while continuing is even more certain to kill us.
So rejecting the attempt to score a point with "Global Cooling" to discredit climate scientists warning about Global Warming is perfectly appropriate and necessary. There is no way to prove that humans can stop Global Warming. If we do fix the CO2 concentrations before we pass a climate tipping point, deniers will claim that the threat was a hoax. If we don't fix it, the only certainly undeniable "proof" that it exists will be the destruction of civilization and millions of humans along with it - too late to prove that we can stop it.
"Global Cooling" is a rhetorical trick used to deny the real scientific consensus on Global Warming.
I worked on a couple of real Y2K projects that stopped major (if not life-threatening) damage. And associates I knew personally stopped likely life-threatening catastrophes.
Now most normals I know believe that Y2K was a hoax to keep the Tech Bubble going another year.
No wonder doctors make you sit in a waiting room for a while with your symptoms before curing you.
I'll take issue with your oversimplification and hyperbole. Not everyone who disagrees with the Global Warming observations and Greenhouse theory is dismissed as crazy. Though some are. Anyone denying Greenhouse science on hearsay or on nothing is irrational. "Crazy", as you say. Others making rational arguments on science, political/business cost or even philosophy of uncertainty can get a fair shake. The crazy ones aren't worth the time to treat gently, and they're infectious.
"Denier" is an epithet that describes someone who denies, especially without basis. Trying to Godwin that fair characterization of Greenhouse deniers is what's insubstantial. Much like the subtle Holocaust denial that forbids comparing other, especially current, repetitions of Nazi fascism or genocide to the original article.
Meanwhile, Greenhouse and Holocaust denial do have a lot in common. Most deniers in history, especially during the Holocaust, were overwhelmed by the enormity of the murderous evil. They bought into the Big Lie to protect themselves, flight rather than fight such a monster that would eventually threaten themselves. This is true of the Greenhouse: it's a lot easier putting gas in your SUV when you deny that burning it makes you more responsible for the Greenhouse than people who burn less. Given the scale of the Greenhouse threat, and the compelling evidence and qualified arguments pointing it out, Greenhouse denial can be at least as evil and murderous as Holocaust denial, though probably more murderous if not quite as evil.
I'd like to see a citation of "some writer" who opined that Greenhouse deniers should face a "climate Nuremburg" for "expressing the wrong opinions". Positions on scientific facts aren't "opinions", they're judgements, more or less right/wrong. And making uncited claims destroys any substance of this "debate" that has been entirely based on irrational propaganda for decades. Until now that we're facing the catastrophe decades too late for it to be anything like easy or certain to be solved.
If Holocaust denial were met with solely calm, technical academic refutations, without calling it bluntly what it is, the general consensus that it happened, that real people did it, that it was abominable, that it must not happen again, that it could happen again if we're not vigilant, would not be so certain. If we don't call Greenhouse deniers what they are, we will all face eradication at our own hands.
Y'know, I worked on a couple of real Y2K projects. We replaced a couple of systems that would have cracked up on 1/1/2000, losing the corporations $millions, and in one case possibly interfering with patients receiving healthcare on time. But we fixed it. As did thousands of other geeks and managers working worldwide. Including several here in NYC I knew personally working on essential infrastructure on which many lives depended, and other people we knew nationwide working on essential realtime systems like transit control, etc.
But since we did a good job, minimizing damage to a negligible amount, lots of people today believe the Y2K bug was a hoax to stretch the Tech Bubble another year.
If farmers stopped feeding their cows "shitty food" (cows), Mad Cow would probably subside. But they aren't stopping.
Epidemics start with a few people. Bird flu is a very serious risk of pandemic. If we don't nip it in the bud, and prepare to cope with any resulting collapse, we will see extreme damage. There's no flu hysteria: the actual risk is certainly proportional to the amount of planning and mitigation underway. SARS was an actual epidemic in China, distinguished by extremely rapid spread under cover of official denial. Until the denial was broken and countermeasures reduced both the rate of infection and its mortality rate. SARS might have been beaten, which we'd expect to do to such a dangerous threat, but if we don't reform our denial systems (China's government has officially apologized for its denial and slowness), it will happen again, maybe SARS or maybe some other disease, and maybe with less success. Maybe even to the tipping point of permanent stability incubated in a global population. AIDS is a case in point.
African overpopulation underlies millions dead prematurely there over the past couple of centuries. Overpopulation without social, political or technical mitigation has overbalanced the continent into position for a collapse from Climate change that will make Rwanda look like Little Big Horn.
But of course those are just variously proportionate responses to variously strong risks, that the OP was denying en masse. As if there are no risks, just because they live in a society which usually recognizes expensive risks and minimizes/mitigates them evn if they don't notice. Especially with their head buried in the sand.
You want to talk about hysteria, let's talk about terrorism. Let's talk about the paranoia about meteorite annihilation, which is just propaganda to fund Star Wars.
Climate change is real. Citing all those atmospheric pollution problems we've mitigated is like citing Y2K. Denying it out of ignorance and fear might play with other ignorant, fearful people. But the science and history of similar cases of "Chicken Little" being right about the actual sky actually falling demand we come to grips with it. And with our society's irrational denial reactions. And with our inclination to deny these other extreme risks in our global civilization living increasingly closer to the edge.
"Global Cooling" is a BS red herring that only Greenhouse deniers like you take "seriously". SARS is still a serious threat of epidemic, after killing thousands where it has spread in China. Bird flu is an even greater epidemic threat, already starting to kill dozens of humans where it has spread in SE Asia/Pacific, and thousands of birds now starting to be found in Europe. Mad cow disease has killed people and is still a threat, even though many thousands of cattle have been destroyed to stop it due to regulation. Overpopulation and mass starvation continue to kill/abuse millions in Africa, Asia and South America.
Smog has caused asthma among millions of people and many other health problems, even though it has been largely checked by regulation. Acid rain destroyed lots of trees and public art before being largely checked by regulation. Ozone depletion and skin cancer is still a serious problem, even though it's been checked by regulation.
Those last few, atmospheric pollution problems, are the most representative. Each of them was faced with the kind of arrogant, ignorant scoffing you still push on them, despite their having been proven manmade and stoppable without the kind of doom you people always say will ensue if regulations stop it. So thank you for making the point that despite many successes in identifying real disasters, then waiting for industry to stop based on just education, then actually regulating them to save ourselves from global pollution, we still face loud ignorant yapping from people like you who ignore science and history.
It's too bad we have to save the denial addicts like you as we save ourselves, but that's what "global" means. You're welcome.
How many feet of sea level rise does the Himalayan glacial melt represent? We see stats about the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (5m) and Greenland (7m), but what about the Himalays? And what about the contribution from all the Andean glaciers, not just Peru's? Canada's got lots of land ice...
Maybe the thousands of climate scientists who say humans are pushing climate change over the edge somehow overlooked that research. No one at NASA ever discusses their research, so it might have gone unnoticed.
You just saved the world from the ignorant climate scientists! Have another cookie.
Sensible people establish governments to protect markets from destruction by looters. Looters establish governments to suppress scientific evidence of market destruction.
Nothing destroys a market like poisoning everyone and our ecosystem.
Slashdot Mirror
Now there's a satellite radio monopoly. That monopoly has competition in terrestrial radio, but that hasn't improved terrestrial radio's quality, because satellite receivers are rare and expensive compared to terrestrial radio.
I wonder what would happen if the satellite network were unbundled from the content, and every media player mobile phone could receive satellite signals.
I never said no one ever said it. I just asked for a citation instead of oversimplified, self-serving evasion of the context that shows who exactly are the deniers in question - not mere "disagreers".
And yes, I did then say that
The Greenhouse is likely to kill many more than the maximum 20-50 million who were killed even indirectly by the Holocaust. And wipe out many more peoples, along the coasts, in new deserts and in the way of the refugees, than were targeted by the Holocaust. There's no possible rigorous comparison of the evil, though intentionally exterminating over 12 million people, including half the world's Jews, is comparable to even unintentionally preventing the avoidance of a Greenhouse that crashes the whole civilization, potentially killing billions. People who worked to hide Nazi genocide were war criminals. People who work to deny the Greenhouse, to stop mitigation, without some rational exoneration (being honestly wrong, not just dishonest), are in the same league, even if it's not a "war".
So what this disagreement between us boils down to is that you are trying to say that since one person (or maybe even a few) have demonized the worst systematic Greenhouse deniers, that all who merely disagree with some scientific basis are being demonized. And in fact you are now trying to put responsibility on me to equate the Greenhouse with the Holocaust, just because I agree that the respective denial of each has some commonality.
That's a lot of crap. And it's what passes for "disagrement" in the Greenhouse denial community. Because it's what's manufactured daily by the Greenhouse denial industry.
Nice ego projector you've got all fired up. Somehow it's so powerful that it can tell whether your nearly flawless self parody comment was not possibly the funniest comment that I have ever seen on Slashdot.
Wrong, but funnier than ever. Let's have another spitball of wisdom from your clown act.
I've been unwillingly subsidizing the Ogalalla Aquifer development six ways from Sunday. Its their mismanagement that is leading to its collapse. I'm still doing everything I can to help ensure the disaster is managed properly, despite the hopelessness of the task. But when it does collapse, like the Gulf levees despite the money and even effort (I lived in New Orleans for years) from distant Yankees among my neighbors, those people are going to ripple over here. Where we've got a whole Hudson we've actually cleaned up in my lifetime. So while I've been installing as furiously as possible, I'm configured for war if that's what's coming across the network.
Yeah. And I was sickened when I heard Bush reassure America that Lott's front porch would be promptly rebuilt.
I expect it has: now the finest front porch on the Gulf Coast, compared to the rubble. Courtesy of Lott's Bush and our tax dollars. Even more sickening. Getting used to it is half the battle. The other half is not getting complacent.
No, you in fact are the one who hasn't bothered to look first. You brought it up, and now you won't back it up. You claim laziness, but who knows? Who cares?
I'll find out on my own. But don't expect me to lift a finger to share it with you.
The Tunguska event was a serious problem?
.sig make sense. You're one of these Star Wars scaredy cats. You don't understand relative risks at all. You never do anything to cope with real risks. All you do is react to the political news you consume. You think that fact needs to be balanced in decisionmaking by fancy.
Oh, I see. It even makes your
The fact is that your politics is in deep conflict with reality. Your spoiled, blythe attitude towards the real threats gets in the way. You like to consider yourself a "skeptic", but you're really just a "doubter". Easy for you, because others are doing the work. Harder work because we have to put up with the empty complaints of people like you, lawyering the science until it doesn't scare you anymore.
Well, I'm done wasting my time with you.
I have the right to defend myself from incoming hordes of overpopulation refugees. When the Southwest US collapses as the Ogalalla Aquifer runs dry because those greedheads couldn't conserve in the desert, I'm not going to let their right to "refuge" interfere with my right to survive.
Not all human rights are compatible with each other. That gets cruelly revealed when the surplus runs out, and not everyone can survive on what's left anymore.
No, you just demonstrated that you think hyperbole means "I don't like it". Your comment was nearly perfect, and now you're just pushing the laugh riot to hysterical limits.
While saying absolutely nothing, yet still being wrong. You're a miracle!
Let's see, your debian fanboy site is in Russia, and you say "US-UK-Israel: the real axis of Evil". You're learning everything about America from _Bowling for Columbine_.
Have you crossed AIDS off your list? Are you crossing Climate Change off your list?
Who cares what's on your list, when all you've got is nationalist hatred?
Oh, I've admitted mistakes before when I've made them, including in posts to Slashdot.
Meanwhile, Anonymous lying Coward, you're not even specific about what I said that you claim is a lie. And of course you don't bother to show how it is a lie. You don't even bother to have an identifiable Slashdot ID. Why shouldn't you spit words like "rational" that you have no qualification to use?
I'm glad you're insulted.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.
Possibly the funniest, stupidest comment I've ever seen on Slashdot, and that's saying quite a lot (about saying absolutely nothing).
I guess you think saying "overweight" means "self-mutilation".
When too many people for resources/infrastructure to support with the rest of their human rights, like nutrition, are alive somewhere, that's "overpopulation".
Is your position some kind of crytobuddhist countermathusianism, or just an extreme example of an antiabortion worldview?
Well, I heard that Global Warming is a myth. And then I heard that it's good for us.
So until I see some science, I'll keep looking for some facts.
You hate your stone birdfeeder?
It's BS because "Global Cooling" was a theory held by a small number of scientists that a hysterical popular press promoted beyond all proportion, without real scientific consensus. The number of scientific papers and news reports can be counted on your fingers and toes, compared to the many thousands of pages of Global Warming science, now with compelling scientific consensus.
Yet it's used to deny the extremely broad scientific consensus, on much more data and much more research, with longer-tested models, that humans are tipping Global Warming over the edge.
More to the point, the exhaustive consensus of qualified scientists says that reducing CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations has a good chance to slow or stop the climate change, while continuing is even more certain to kill us.
So rejecting the attempt to score a point with "Global Cooling" to discredit climate scientists warning about Global Warming is perfectly appropriate and necessary. There is no way to prove that humans can stop Global Warming. If we do fix the CO2 concentrations before we pass a climate tipping point, deniers will claim that the threat was a hoax. If we don't fix it, the only certainly undeniable "proof" that it exists will be the destruction of civilization and millions of humans along with it - too late to prove that we can stop it.
"Global Cooling" is a rhetorical trick used to deny the real scientific consensus on Global Warming.
I worked on a couple of real Y2K projects that stopped major (if not life-threatening) damage. And associates I knew personally stopped likely life-threatening catastrophes.
Now most normals I know believe that Y2K was a hoax to keep the Tech Bubble going another year.
No wonder doctors make you sit in a waiting room for a while with your symptoms before curing you.
I'll take issue with your oversimplification and hyperbole. Not everyone who disagrees with the Global Warming observations and Greenhouse theory is dismissed as crazy. Though some are. Anyone denying Greenhouse science on hearsay or on nothing is irrational. "Crazy", as you say. Others making rational arguments on science, political/business cost or even philosophy of uncertainty can get a fair shake. The crazy ones aren't worth the time to treat gently, and they're infectious.
"Denier" is an epithet that describes someone who denies, especially without basis. Trying to Godwin that fair characterization of Greenhouse deniers is what's insubstantial. Much like the subtle Holocaust denial that forbids comparing other, especially current, repetitions of Nazi fascism or genocide to the original article.
Meanwhile, Greenhouse and Holocaust denial do have a lot in common. Most deniers in history, especially during the Holocaust, were overwhelmed by the enormity of the murderous evil. They bought into the Big Lie to protect themselves, flight rather than fight such a monster that would eventually threaten themselves. This is true of the Greenhouse: it's a lot easier putting gas in your SUV when you deny that burning it makes you more responsible for the Greenhouse than people who burn less. Given the scale of the Greenhouse threat, and the compelling evidence and qualified arguments pointing it out, Greenhouse denial can be at least as evil and murderous as Holocaust denial, though probably more murderous if not quite as evil.
I'd like to see a citation of "some writer" who opined that Greenhouse deniers should face a "climate Nuremburg" for "expressing the wrong opinions". Positions on scientific facts aren't "opinions", they're judgements, more or less right/wrong. And making uncited claims destroys any substance of this "debate" that has been entirely based on irrational propaganda for decades. Until now that we're facing the catastrophe decades too late for it to be anything like easy or certain to be solved.
If Holocaust denial were met with solely calm, technical academic refutations, without calling it bluntly what it is, the general consensus that it happened, that real people did it, that it was abominable, that it must not happen again, that it could happen again if we're not vigilant, would not be so certain. If we don't call Greenhouse deniers what they are, we will all face eradication at our own hands.
Y'know, I worked on a couple of real Y2K projects. We replaced a couple of systems that would have cracked up on 1/1/2000, losing the corporations $millions, and in one case possibly interfering with patients receiving healthcare on time. But we fixed it. As did thousands of other geeks and managers working worldwide. Including several here in NYC I knew personally working on essential infrastructure on which many lives depended, and other people we knew nationwide working on essential realtime systems like transit control, etc.
But since we did a good job, minimizing damage to a negligible amount, lots of people today believe the Y2K bug was a hoax to stretch the Tech Bubble another year.
If farmers stopped feeding their cows "shitty food" (cows), Mad Cow would probably subside. But they aren't stopping.
Epidemics start with a few people. Bird flu is a very serious risk of pandemic. If we don't nip it in the bud, and prepare to cope with any resulting collapse, we will see extreme damage. There's no flu hysteria: the actual risk is certainly proportional to the amount of planning and mitigation underway. SARS was an actual epidemic in China, distinguished by extremely rapid spread under cover of official denial. Until the denial was broken and countermeasures reduced both the rate of infection and its mortality rate. SARS might have been beaten, which we'd expect to do to such a dangerous threat, but if we don't reform our denial systems (China's government has officially apologized for its denial and slowness), it will happen again, maybe SARS or maybe some other disease, and maybe with less success. Maybe even to the tipping point of permanent stability incubated in a global population. AIDS is a case in point.
African overpopulation underlies millions dead prematurely there over the past couple of centuries. Overpopulation without social, political or technical mitigation has overbalanced the continent into position for a collapse from Climate change that will make Rwanda look like Little Big Horn.
But of course those are just variously proportionate responses to variously strong risks, that the OP was denying en masse. As if there are no risks, just because they live in a society which usually recognizes expensive risks and minimizes/mitigates them evn if they don't notice. Especially with their head buried in the sand.
You want to talk about hysteria, let's talk about terrorism. Let's talk about the paranoia about meteorite annihilation, which is just propaganda to fund Star Wars.
Climate change is real. Citing all those atmospheric pollution problems we've mitigated is like citing Y2K. Denying it out of ignorance and fear might play with other ignorant, fearful people. But the science and history of similar cases of "Chicken Little" being right about the actual sky actually falling demand we come to grips with it. And with our society's irrational denial reactions. And with our inclination to deny these other extreme risks in our global civilization living increasingly closer to the edge.
"Global Cooling" is a BS red herring that only Greenhouse deniers like you take "seriously".
SARS is still a serious threat of epidemic, after killing thousands where it has spread in China.
Bird flu is an even greater epidemic threat, already starting to kill dozens of humans where it has spread in SE Asia/Pacific, and thousands of birds now starting to be found in Europe.
Mad cow disease has killed people and is still a threat, even though many thousands of cattle have been destroyed to stop it due to regulation.
Overpopulation and mass starvation continue to kill/abuse millions in Africa, Asia and South America.
Smog has caused asthma among millions of people and many other health problems, even though it has been largely checked by regulation.
Acid rain destroyed lots of trees and public art before being largely checked by regulation.
Ozone depletion and skin cancer is still a serious problem, even though it's been checked by regulation.
Those last few, atmospheric pollution problems, are the most representative. Each of them was faced with the kind of arrogant, ignorant scoffing you still push on them, despite their having been proven manmade and stoppable without the kind of doom you people always say will ensue if regulations stop it. So thank you for making the point that despite many successes in identifying real disasters, then waiting for industry to stop based on just education, then actually regulating them to save ourselves from global pollution, we still face loud ignorant yapping from people like you who ignore science and history.
It's too bad we have to save the denial addicts like you as we save ourselves, but that's what "global" means. You're welcome.
How many feet of sea level rise does the Himalayan glacial melt represent? We see stats about the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (5m) and Greenland (7m), but what about the Himalays? And what about the contribution from all the Andean glaciers, not just Peru's? Canada's got lots of land ice...
Even the NASA data for flood elevations goes up to only 14m. We've got a lot more ice than that.
I saw a documentary about people eating your family alive to survive after a climate disaster made Bush's Katrina look like Monica Lewinsky.
Maybe the thousands of climate scientists who say humans are pushing climate change over the edge somehow overlooked that research. No one at NASA ever discusses their research, so it might have gone unnoticed.
You just saved the world from the ignorant climate scientists! Have another cookie.
Sensible people establish governments to protect markets from destruction by looters. Looters establish governments to suppress scientific evidence of market destruction.
Nothing destroys a market like poisoning everyone and our ecosystem.
Ha, ha.