Re: Doug - PLEASE EXPLAIN

On 10 Apr, 11:24, %ste...@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Steve Firth) wrote:
Doug <jag...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 9 Apr, 18:28, %ste...@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Steve Firth) wrote:
Doug <jag...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Why do people keep confusing 'Global' with 'Local'?

They don't. However you keep trying to introduce this strawman as a get
out clause.

What happens in the UK has very little bearing on GLOBAL warming.
As you phrase it, you are sort of correct. However that doesn't mean
much. One canot use a single country as a yardstick for global warming.
But that works as much against you as it does for you.

How? I don't use UK as a yardstick but you seem to.

You base your doom and gloom scenarios on what happens in the Uk with
respect to fuel prices, weather conditions and traffic.

Liar.

They also seem to have very little idea of relative timescales.

And you have no concept at all of relative timescales.

Skipped that one, I see.

See below.

The fact that the Earth was much warmer a few million years ago has
absolutely no significance on a human timescale.

What was being talked about was not a scale of a few million years, but
a timescale of less than two thousand years. You do yourself no favours
by trying to confuse a period within recorded history with "a few
million years".

Now you are confusing both timescales and global by applying this two
thousand years just to the UK.

No dummy, I'm pointing out that the OP referred to a timescale of less
than 2,000 years and that you jumped in with your moan about "a few
million years" which had no relevance at all to the OPs comment. Which
you have avoided, again.

OP? What are you referring to, idiot? I was talking about claims made
in this thread.

Actually GW is just a part of a much bigger problem which will
eventually catch up with humanity, if it hasn't already. It is the
problem of over consumption of the Earth's finite resources.

That's yet another of your fallacies, born of your love for doom and
gloom scenarios. Provided that the so-called greens don't push the
legislators to create law that prevents recycling (as they already have
for recycling steel) then there are adequate resources for a long, long
time. Finite does not mean limited.

At the rate people like you are using up the resources it is our
children who are going to suffer.

Another set of fallacies, ad hominem, an appeal to consequences and
misleading vividness.

Since when did you abandon ad hominems? Virtually all of your posts
are peppered with personal insults, hypocrite.

We are no having to resort to using human food for the production of fuel
for cars while millions continue to starve.

That's three fallacies in one sentence, an appeal to consequences, post
hoc ergo propter hoc and misleading vivdness. The reason that food is
being used for fuel is not from necessity, but because of pressure not
to use oil (of which there is no immediate shortage)

Then why has its price been rising?

Duh! Politics. Perhaps you should read the news rather than simply
scanning the Daily Mail for hysterical editorial?

No cogent answer from you then, as usual?

for hypothetical
environmental reasons.

Agreed. So why are motorists succumbing to this greenwash pressure?
They don't have to buy petrol laced with ethanol. Is it because they
feel guilty about wasting non-renewables?

They are not being offered a choice. The politicians, in response to the
whining of the "greens" have cut the taxes on ethanol. The fuel
suppliers respond by adding up to 5% ethanol to fuel (but not passing
the tax saving on to the consumer) which creates a demand for ethanol.

Are you trying to claim they can't buy non-ethanol laced fuel?

Millions will starve no matter whether the grain
in question is used for fuel or not and their starvation cannot be
alleviated even if the grain in question were given to them. Indeed
giving people grain can be nothing other than a short term fix for
famine.

The reason that those people are starving isn't because grain is being
used for fuel. Those people are starving because of fucked-up politics.

Already biofuels are forcing up the prices of food sources such as
corn. This hardly helps the starving.

Drivel, plain and simple. The starving around the world are not starving
because they cannot afford to import expensive grain.

Wrong, as usual. The doubling in corn prices due to ethanol production
is hitting the poor in Mexico already.

And of course Duhg is going to have to explain how, without transport,
the grain could be shipped to the starving.

Filth is going to have to explain why there would be no transport.

You don't want there to be any transport, remember?

Liar.

I don't exclude essential transport,

That's a lie, how can transport run without fossil fuel?

Dwindling fossil fuel should only be used for essential services like
food distribution.

just the frivolous waste of transport energy and food miles that you
exemplify.

Back to your collection of logical fallacies.

Your logical fallacy is using your 4x4 for shopping.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Cars are the main contributer to food miles.

.

Loading