View Single Post
Old 05-04-2019, 01:24 PM   #5752 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
freebeard's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: northwest of normal
Posts: 26,597
Thanks: 7,490
Thanked 8,292 Times in 6,817 Posts
Originally Posted by myself
Tony Heller thinks the data is fudged, others think the climate science is wrong, but the statistical view is that the interpretation is wrong.
You quoted this part and didn't respond to it. Your response? I'm with the statistical view.
A 15 minute rant on — it's not just dumb it's dangerous to say fossil fuels haven't improved human health.
Perhaps you missed some of the conversation pertaining to fossil-fuel-induce[d] extinction.That would be a health implication in the negative.
'improved human health' is a perfectly contextual comment,and is valid,only within the extremely myopic worldview in which it is framed.
So you're saying that so-called 'fossil-fuel' use is leading to human extinction? Well. of course... collapsing food chains will take everything down but it's cause is pollution not the weather.
Again, I was going to Xist's shed thread to post this but it's relevant here:

At ten minutes it gets onto veganism and cloth diapers, but basically it is a low-tech house under a high tech dome. This would work as well in Aridzona as it does in Snorway.
Without freedom of speech we wouldn't know who all the idiots are. -- anonymous poster


The best accident is no accident -- Elon Musk
The Following User Says Thank You to freebeard For This Useful Post:
aerohead (05-04-2019)