How extensive is their knowledge base on the proportional impact of different regional producers? I have no idea, likley not much better than the emerging science still being debated. Not that it matters from a rational point of view. Politically it might....but those arguments are a shade unripe given that around 2/3rds of the population doesn't believe it poses any sort of real threat. Typical Turd..Most of the argument on this board devolve into trying to convince some fucker there is a such a things as the existence of gravity and y'all want to argue about whether want to argue about whether Obama;s birth certificate falls as fast as an apple in a vacuum....and more importantly..was it a Dyson Vacuum????Turdacious wrote:And what is their knowledge base about the relationship between development and pollution? I'm guessing about where yours is. Maybe you're not the expert you think you are.Blaidd Drwg wrote:Turd, the "climate change crowd" you're talking about is a bunch fucking asshats who wouldn't know the periodic table from the star trek stickers on the back of their Prius. the "Climate Change Crowd" I find compelling are the 10 or 12 legit scientists who I turn to for help me make sense of the sound versus the noise. The real physicists, chemists, and meteorologists who can parse this data give zero fucks about politics.Turdacious wrote:No. Air pollution (the issue everyone agrees is a problem) and 3rd world development are connected and nobody has a good solution. The climate change crowd ignores this.
http://breakingenergy.com/2014/09/23/en ... countries/
I don't believe for a second that I understand on a deep scientific level the full nuances of a subject like climate change or the internal workings of trade politics..those are matters of ongoing science, law and vigorous debate...but when someone points out the obvious, the "nothing to see here" responses are utterly tiresome and predicable.