Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> wrote: ** > Jed, there is so much scattered baloney in your post that needs to be > corrected; but I refuse to drag Vortex-l down the pithole of irrelevant > off-topic posts. >
Then don't. I suggest you comment only on the parts relating to cold fusion. I am not sure what to make of this: > What exactly is so bad with a little global warming. Seems to me that a > few degrees rise in average global temperature should open up more land for > year round planting increasing the food supply for the world. Sure a bunch > of retrograde European Cities will be submerged, but it's about time they > abandon those locations anyways. Those who cry "Global Warming is a > disaster" are simply worshiping at the altar of Environmental Pantheism . . > . > Is that supposed to be joke, or a parody? Sarcasm? It is sometimes difficult to tell on the Internet. If you are serious, then I think you have no business accusing me of writing baloney. Global warming bad enough to submerge any European city will also submerge entire nations such as Bangladesh. The sea level is uniform worldwide. This will be the worst environmental disaster imaginable, short of a large meteorite. It would kill the largest number of people and other species in recorded history. It may "open up land" in Canada perhaps but it will destroy far more arable land than it opens. The impact you see this year on U.S. agriculture will be world-wide, leading to starvation on an unprecedented scale. If you do not believe global warming is real, that is -- at least -- a viable argument. But to argue that it is real, it will submerge cities, and it will "open up" some land while it destroys other land, yet it is nothing to worry about . . . that is crazy. That is irrational. Even the extreme right wing in the U.S. does not make that claim. The coal industry does, of course. Hence the "Greening Earth Society." What else can they say? - Jed
