Let us all poop in the bushes instead of in the water. The sea, our primary food source, will thank us.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Sorry, you're just nitpicking and not considering the totality of what Williams is saying, which is 100% correct!

It's hardly 'nitpicking' to expect honest quoting. What you are doing is 'cherry-picking' which is different altogether. So why did the denying arsholes first claim it wasn't happening at all? That the planet wasn't heating up? (Not everyone has the memory of a goldfish). When it became so fucking obvious that even the biggest idiots (like you) could see it happening, they changed their story and conceded that it is happening, but decided to call it 'human-caused' global warming so they could claim it's a 'natural phenomenon' and cover their lying arses. You lot really are the scum of the earth.

[bobevenson]

It's sad that progressive, liberal socialism has clouded your mind from any measure of truth referred to on the plaque at Bascom Hall that reads, "Whatever may be the limitations which trammel inquiry elsewhere, we believe the great state University of Wisconsin should ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing, by which alone the truth can be found."

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It's sad that progressive, liberal socialism has clouded your mind from any measure of truth referred to on the plaque at Bascom Hall that reads, "Whatever may be the limitations which trammel inquiry elsewhere, we believe the great state University of Wisconsin should ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing, by which alone the truth can be found."

It's sad that your insanity clouds your mind from anything remotely resembling truth.

[Londoner]

If you think he made a mistake on one example, which is certainly unproven and based only on your comment, why do you automatically assume everything he said is probably a mistake. That's prejudicial thinking at best.

I also pointed out that the following paragraph was also misleading.

But we can go on to look at the paragraph after that one:

Also in 1970, Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look magazine: "Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian (Institution), believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct."

Again, we have a 'quote' from 'Look' magazine from nearly 50 years ago. Both the people it mentioned are safely dead and cannot speak for themselves. In this case, it isn't even a direct quote, but a quote of somebody's gloss of what he considered another person thought. I don't know if you have an academic background, but you are not supposed to do that.

You can tell it is iffy; ...the species of living animals.... As opposed to the species of dead animals? And what does 'animals' mean? Depending on what was meant (e.g. if he meant land animals), he may well be right. It is obviously difficult since you cannot prove a negative (that no example of a species survives) and nor do we know how many species there are in total, so we have to estimate by comparing extinction rates in the species we do know about to the long term rate. However you do the sums, everyone agrees that the rate of species loss is greatly above 'normal'; that what is happening now qualifies as a 'mass extinction event' (like those seen in past geological periods).

Now, I have been through three paragraphs, not cherry-picked but taken in order. I think I have made my point.

Once again, the point is not that some people have an ideological dislike of the climate change message, but that this dislike is enough to make them throw away all their professional and academic standards. It is a point about human nature; that our reason really is the slave of our passions!

[Ginkgo]

Let us all poop in the bushes instead of in the water. The sea, our primary food source, will thank u

I think this is a bad idea considering the size of the world's population. There wouldn't be a single bush on the face of the earth that isn't covered in shit.

[Greatest I am]

Let us all poop in the bushes instead of in the water. The sea, our primary food source, will thank us.

Our neighbours, however, will not.

Have we forgotten the lesson of the Great Plague and the consequences of poor sanitation?

Indeed. That is why where we pump it, on land, will have to be chosen with care and with the view of reclaiming the earth and fertilizer that results from our stockpiling our waste products.

That will trump our destroying our seas and oceans.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Let us all poop in the bushes instead of in the water. The sea, our primary food source, will thank u

I think this is a bad idea considering the size of the world's population. There wouldn't be a single bush on the face of the earth that isn't covered in shit.

Look around and note all the topsoil we are loosing.

If we do not replace it there or elsewhere, there will not be bushes.

If we continue to squander our potable water on cows, there wont be enough for the bushes either.

Did you note the timing of water shortages in that link of Cowspiracy?

Regards
DL

[Science Fan]

It's amazing that people still deny global warming, despite the overwhelming evidence that it is occurring, and at a rate greater than all of the climate models predicted. To deny global climate change, one has to deny the following undisputed facts of science: 1. That carbon emissions absorb radiation that would otherwise go back into space from Earth, which has been demonstrated to occur by direct laboratory experiments. 2. That satellites measuring the emissions of radiation into space show that it is being absorbed at exactly those frequencies predicted by scientific experiments pertaining to the green-house gases absorbing emissions in laboratory experiments. 3. That this increased retention of radiation heats up the planet. If one connects the dots on all of the science that is undisputed, it's impossible to conclude that warming is not occurring. Even when science deniers manipulate the data --- like pointing to years when land surface temperatures did not rise, while completely ignoring the facts that in those years, the temperatures of the ocean water accelerated. So, other than a dishonest manipulation of the data, climate-science deniers have nothing to offer anyone.

[Greatest I am]

It's amazing that people still deny global warming, despite the overwhelming evidence that it is occurring, and at a rate greater than all of the climate models predicted. To deny global climate change, one has to deny the following undisputed facts of science: 1. That carbon emissions absorb radiation that would otherwise go back into space from Earth, which has been demonstrated to occur by direct laboratory experiments. 2. That satellites measuring the emissions of radiation into space show that it is being absorbed at exactly those frequencies predicted by scientific experiments pertaining to the green-house gases absorbing emissions in laboratory experiments. 3. That this increased retention of radiation heats up the planet. If one connects the dots on all of the science that is undisputed, it's impossible to conclude that warming is not occurring. Even when science deniers manipulate the data --- like pointing to years when land surface temperatures did not rise, while completely ignoring the facts that in those years, the temperatures of the ocean water accelerated. So, other than a dishonest manipulation of the data, climate-science deniers have nothing to offer anyone.

There is no good argument against what you put, but the denial some have is likely more politically driven than scientifically driven.

I see the U.S. as making a grab on the economic side by not implementing a carbon tax that some other countries are charging their industries.

Trump and his denier ilk know the science is real. They just prefer to take more market share and to hell with the environment. That or they are directly profiting from the status quo and fear to lose their position and wealth.

Regards
DL

[Greta]

Let us all poop in the bushes instead of in the water. The sea, our primary food source, will thank us.

Our neighbours, however, will not.

Have we forgotten the lesson of the Great Plague and the consequences of poor sanitation?

Indeed. That is why where we pump it, on land, will have to be chosen with care and with the view of reclaiming the earth and fertilizer that results from our stockpiling our waste products.

That will trump our destroying our seas and oceans.

I'm sure some places are using their poop products better than others. That will come in time, I suspect, though necessity. As you know, not much gets done in this world until it's either too late or at the eleventh hour (unless the multinationals are worried or politicians see a possible cheap gain of votes during the three-year electoral cycle).

[Greatest I am]

Our neighbours, however, will not.

Have we forgotten the lesson of the Great Plague and the consequences of poor sanitation?

Indeed. That is why where we pump it, on land, will have to be chosen with care and with the view of reclaiming the earth and fertilizer that results from our stockpiling our waste products.

That will trump our destroying our seas and oceans.

I'm sure some places are using their poop products better than others. That will come in time, I suspect, though necessity. As you know, not much gets done in this world until it's either too late or at the eleventh hour (unless the multinationals are worried or politicians see a possible cheap gain of votes during the three-year electoral cycle).

Sweet. You left nothing for me to argue against.

For water shortages world wide, they are estimating 18 yrs. The eleventh hour is now if we are to reverse the trends.

Regards
DL