Posts by ron
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Haven't you read David Copperfield? Children aren't humans, and therefore have no rights
Well, it's true they don't have the right to vote, or drink in pubs, or drink at home, or have sex, or go to war, or gamble, or drive a car, or smoke, or see r18 movies, be left home alone, etc, etc. Is that what you meant?
-
That would be the likes of Save the Children, Barnardos and EPOCH - the very groups that Family First spent months this year slagging off for their views on "smacking".
And rightly so. Their views on smacking didn't have a whiff of scientific evidence behind them. Although no doubt these groups were afraid to bite the hand that feeds them. But to confuse smacking with child abuse really was beyond the pale. I note that the two children recently admitted to Starhip hospital, who were both allegedly abused, don't appear to have received their injuries from being smacked.
-
Tim, correct me if I'm wrong but the IPCC isn't saying that we're stuffed if we do nothing.
-
Have you actually seen the movie? The one where he says, this is a really bad scenario that might happen if we do little or nothing
Yes, I have seen the movie. And obviously Gore is a doom and gloom merchant (and unfortunately not an economist). Why talk about the flooding of Ground Zero, as Gore does? Is there any point to it? Well, yes, there is; it makes for a sensational picture.
The trouble is, I don't - and I'm sure many others don't - want sensationalism, I want the truth. Gore's so-called doco does, after all, have the word 'truth' in the title. So why does Gore have so much difficulty articulating the truth without resorting to sensationalism? Could it be that the truth isn't as sexy? Could it be that the truth isn't inconvenient at all?
-
I'm not sure what the TAB has to do with it...
I would've thought that it was obvious. The TAB wouldn't accept my bet under the conditions referred to. Conversely, I cannot go to the TAB, place a bet, and then, when I lose, say that my assumptions on which I based my bet were wrong, so therefore I should get a refund.
What you seem to be saying is that all those doom and gloom merchants are being silly because their predictions are based on selective and partial information of what might happen to the planet if the worst possible scenario happened and we did nothing. Well, yes, I agree. But the assumptions on which such an outcome is based are similar to those required to swallow a Hollywood storyline.
-
Er... non sequiteur?
How exactly?
-
Ron.... If I predict you'll crash your car if you continue driving with your eyes closed.... and you open them and dont crash.... does that mean my prediction was wrong?
Let's see, Fletcher. If I go into my local TAB and ask to put a bet on the AB's to win the World Cup, but only on the assumptions that none of their players will get injured during the tournament, that the grounds will be firm, and that the other teams won't be at their best, the TAB will accept my bet, right? Thought not.
-
All the examples you cited were cases where states did take action. Therefore, they are not evidence that doom and gloom merchants are inevitably wrong.
Stephen,
When people make predictions, they are either right or wrong. A lot of people did make predictions about impending doom in regard to the examples I gave. They were clearly wrong. I don't think you can have your cake and eat it. Well, maybe you can but it will only make you fat!
-
You seem to be suggesting that we shouldn't do anything about preventing future problems and should just wait until they have happened.
I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. My main point is that we should not believe the doom and gloom merchants because they are invariably wrong.
Second we should do what we can but spending billions of dollars on climate change may not be economic, especially if the expenditure of such money in other areas would produce greater benefits.
-
But people did things precisely to prevent them becoming serious
So, what you're saying is that nothing is being done about climate change?
Russell, thanks for the articles.
I note that the RealClimate article complains that the popular press distorted the findings of science to propogate the myth of an impending ice age. But surely the writer fails to see the wood for the trees. It is the popular press which is largely behind the current position that climate change is all bad and is the fault of all of us. I'm sure you'll agree that scientists take a rather different, somewhat less cynical and more moderate, view.