We watched this at school


It is hard hitting but I do not think people will sadly listen to the message. Pete was great but the kids at school were bored by it. A lil bit too long.

reply

Your school had no right to show this to you. It's political propaganda. Did they also show you Obama's speech? Do you sing songs in his praise each morning?

reply

Absolutely right that the school had no right to show this!

Why, the nerve of those commie socialist propagandizing indoctrinators -- exposing students to new concepts for them to think about, evaluate, and accept or reject based on their critical thinking skills!

Everybody knows that one of the chief dangers of keeping an open mind is that sometimes you get things in it -- that's very dangerous for students and we're fortunate that we have mkb-7 to publicly display the advantages of keeping one's mind tightly sealed. The goal of any school should be to make sure that every student leaves with exactly the same amount of knowledge he or she had when the student entered the classroom. Anything else invites horrifying possibilities like skepticism, rationality, consideration, evaluation of sources, and thought. From there it's only a short slippery slope to hippiedom and maybe even (gasp) polkas played on harmonicas.

To do anything else, such as to listen to a president like Ronald Reagan in a national broadcast to school classrooms in 1986 or to George H. W. Bush in a national broadcast to school classrooms in 1990 or to George W. Bush reading to a classroom full of kids in in September 2001 or listening to Barack Obama in a national broadcast to school classrooms in 2009 is unpatiotic and fascist and should be resisted strenuously for as long as our tea bags hold out. Presidents should be seen and not heard!

Keep on fighting the good fight, mkb-7! Why, the very idea of using schools to teach students to evaluate new concepts and learn critical thinking skills is chilling -- we need to put a stop to it. What's good enough for the Taliban is good enough for us!

reply

He shoots, he scores. :)

reply

It is wrong to push a certain political viewpoint in schools. Students should be taught science, reading skills, math, computers, engineering, etc... They should not be indoctrinated. The government school system is out of control. The only solution to increase quality of eduction and introduce *true* diversity of thought is to start moving towards private school systems again, which puts control back into the hands of parents as consumers. The government system just doesn't work.

reply

Climate change is no more a "political viewpoint" than is the theory of aerodynamics, the theory of relativity, the theory of evolution, the theory of quantum mechanics, the germ theory of disease, or the theory that the black plague in Europe dramatically increased the standard of living.

AND -- mbk-7 said that schools had "no right" to show the film, without displaying any of the evaluative or critical thinking skills that I discussed in my reply.

The original poster simply stated the film was shown "in school." Yes, it might be inappropriate to show the film in a 4th grade social studies class. It would be VERY appropriate to show the movie in a graduate MFA class at the UCLA film school. How about in an undergrad meteorology class at a junior college? How abouth an 11th grade political science class with the film paired with a climate-change-denier movie?

You don't know the context, you don't know the reason for the showing, you don't know the audience, and you don't know how the post-viewing discussion was handled. There are far more scholastic venues for which the film would be perfectly appropriate than there are venues for the which the film would be inappropriate.

Instead of evaluating the milieu, finding out the facts, and coming to a reasoned decision, you simply launch into a reflexive anti-government diatribe.

As your simplistic thoughtless echoing of Fox News talking points demonstrates, it is indeed probable that your school failed you in your education. If you went to a public school, then I may agree with some of your points, since you didn't learn what you needed to. However, if you went to a private school, maybe you could ask for a refund.

reply

--"Instead of evaluating the milieu, finding out the facts, and coming to a reasoned decision, you simply launch into a reflexive anti-government diatribe."

There's nothing reflexive about it. I arrived at my position through years of hard earned observations and conclusions. However, I doubt you appreciate or even understand the central mechanism of competition and free markets that has delivered to us the prosperity we enjoy.

--"As your simplistic thoughtless echoing of Fox News talking points demonstrates, it is indeed probable that your school failed you in your education."

I don't even think we get Fox News where I live. You just revealed yourself to be a cliched drone, however. And perhaps I succeeded despite my public schooling.

reply

Interesting ... perhaps we should get to know each other before making assumptions ... and in the spirit of that, I will withdraw my previous statements that could be interpreted as casting aspersions upon your beliefs or your motives. Since I don't know how you came about your "years of hard earned observations and conclusions," I will simply assume you have reasons for believing as you do. Although I must point out -- reflexes can indeed be learned responses, and your immediate response probably was a reflex developed by your "hard earned observations." We could perhaps have an interesting and lively discussion were we to ever come together over coffee.

Similarly, you have come to conclusions about me based on ignorance. I do not regard myself as a "cliched drone" and could not find any cliches in either of my postings, so I'm puzzled where that came from. In fact, I come down very hard on my MBA students when they use cliches at the university for which I have taught graduate business students for over a decade, after a 23-year career in the U.S. military. Therefore, I strongly disagree with your assumption that I do not "appreciate or even understand the central mechanism of competition and free markets that has delivered to us the prosperity we enjoy." I do indeed understand business, the economy, and market forces. I also understand the effect of personal and corporate greed on the conduct of business, and the relationship between business and politics, to a significantly greater degree than an average layperson.

Best wishes.

reply

Every leftist/socialist I run into who disagrees with free market principles throws out the same accusation that "you are just echoing Fox News talking points". Why don't they accuse me of echoing Reason Magazine? I assume there is some show, probably on MSNBC, that says the same thing and the various drones go around repeating that accusation. In any event, it's a tired cliche by now.

I'm in agreement with you that the business/politics relationship is a huge problem, but I'd put the stronger part of that blame on politicians seeking favors for reelection. Businessmen are pretty much forced to get lobbyists to try and prevent politicians from damaging their industries. Not sure if you've heard of Ron Paul but he has the most accurate view I've heard of the problems in Washington.

reply

As I said previously, I withdrew my statement that you were an echo of Glen Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Brit Hume, et. al. I am perfectly willing to assume that you independently came up with the statements you made and that the fact they are identical with the repetitive statements of innumerable right-wings pundits is simply a coincidence. After all, Leibnitz and Newton both invented calculus independently and I am very willing to believe that your beliefs are heartfelt and independently formed.

However, you're continuing to make assumptions. After 23 years in uniform with a career spanning from Viet Nam to Gulf War I (Desert Storm), I tend to bristle a bit when people who don't know me think my views represent socialism -- it displays ignorance of both my views AND of socialism.

Whether politics or business is the driver of unpalatable behavior is debatable and I can't argue with your viewpoint though I believe it more of a a chicken-and-egg issue than one group being more or less resonsible than the other.

I am indeed familiar with Ron Paul, and have studied and analyzed his statements extensively for curriculum development in macroeconomics classes. Unfortunately, he is not a historian, a sociologist, or an international economist. He doesn't realize that about 85% of his ideas have been tried, sometimes extensively, in various economies over the last 20 to 50 years. About 30% have been effective and the remaining 70% have been either neutral (at best) or more commonly, detrimental to the economic health of the society in which they've been implemented.

Most realists recognize that the controlled economies of the Communist era demonstrated Marxist theory to be a miserable failure when implemented. Unfortunately, there are those who cling to a belief in laissez-faire economic, fiscal, and monetary policies despite an equal amount of evidence that they work not much better than a socialist economy over the long term. Churchill once said that "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have ever been tried." Much the same could be said of regulated capitalism -- it's be best that's been tried, but either too much or too little regulation causes excess that impairs its ability to succeed.

All of which is WAY off the topic of the board -- which is the film "The Age of Stupid," and its role as a discussion generator in the climate change debate.

Best wishes.

reply

--"I am perfectly willing to assume that you independently came up with the statements you made and that the fact they are identical with the repetitive statements of innumerable right-wings pundits is simply a coincidence. After all, Leibnitz and Newton both invented calculus independently and I am very willing to believe that your beliefs are heartfelt and independently formed."

Well no, now you're even further off base. I make no claim that I "independently" came up with these ideas. I said I didn't get them from Fox News, your initial cliched accusation. I've collected these ideas from a number of sources over the years, and used my own observations to confirm or refute these ideas.

--"he is not a historian, a sociologist, or an international economist"

Is that some sort of requirement? I'd say he's better than most with history and a pretty good economist - a good deal better than the moldy Keynesians that infest Washington.

I also disagree with your claim that his ideas have been tried. The closest laboratories we've seen for free markets have come from economies like Hong Kong, Singapore (keep in mind I said economically), and pre-depression USA. In all cases, the closer they got to free markets the more they thrived when compared to other nations of the same time period. On the flip side, the farther they moved from freedom (and the closer they came to socialism) the more the population suffered. That's a pretty definitive result in favor of free markets.

reply

No it's not a requirement that he be an economist or a historian. But if he were, he would realize that his ideas have been tried, as I said. It's not a requirement that YOU be a historian or an economist, either. But if you're going to disagree with my statement, it would be helpful to be either. Or at least do a little research before you disagree. It again simply displays your ignorance. I stand by my statement, and you can discover its veracity with very little effort.

You also bring up some interesting examples in favor of a laissez-faire free-market unregulated economy. I was in Hong Kong a number of times during its heyday in the 70s, before the impending PRC takeover was much more than a shadow on the horizon and nobody was worried about it. It was colorful, vibrant, invigorating, and a lot of fun -- until one looked up to the hillsides surrounding the developed area of the harbor, Victoria, the Kai-Tak area, and Kowloon, and realized that 70% of the population (the ones that made the Hong Kong lifestyle possible) lived in shanties made of scrap material, had no utilities, and averaged over 1000 deaths per month from mudslides, landslides, building collapses, and fires, and another 1000 deaths per month (British governmnet figures) from lack of sanitation. Plus another few dozen murders per month from the triads and tongs fighting for territorial control of the rackets, especially gambling. The film "Slumdog Millionnaire," though set in India, was very reminiscent of what Hong Kong was like at its peak. Great argument for a pure free-market economy; almost as good a one as pointing to the sixteenth-century lifestyle of European nobility as an argument in favor of bringing back the feudal system. I'm sure we'd both be much happier with an army of serfs maintaining our manors and estates.

And let's see, the last time I was in Singapore it was also colorful and vibrant, though not as invigorating or fun as Hong Kong. It was extremely clean, though. That's what happens when you have one of the most politically repressive governments, supported by one of the most institutionalized systems of graft in the world that keeps its "free market" economy free -- for the ones that afford to pay to play. Great place if you're a fan of law and order, though not as great a place if you're a fan of individual rights and liberties.

And pre-depression USA -- another great example. Flappers, jazz, bathtub gin. And Jay Gould. And Rockefeller. And Carnegie. Great philanthopists, and cut-throat unscrupulous "business" people who used and abused the free markets to take us from pre-depression America into the depression. Using the fact that the free market economy in pre-depression America directly led us INTO the depression is not a particularly good example, unless you're making the case that the depression was good for the country.

None of your examples represent a place I'd want to live. I kind of like America with its regulated capitalism. It is my favorite place in the world, in large part due to the freedom people have to enter into business. However, I like modern America better than I would have liked the 1920s or the 1930s my parents, grandparents, and in-laws had to live through. Growing up in the 1950s was pretty good and it's gotten better since. Do you have any plans to move to Hong Kong or Singapore soon? Does Ron Paul?

And you might want to check out the current issue of Money Magazine to see what one of Reagan's top advisors, a die-hard supply sider, and one of the chief architects of Reaganomics has to say about "moldy Keynesians."

I'm done. This will be my last reply. I absolutely HATE arguing with people who know less than I do, and who know less than they think they know, and know so little that they don't know how much they don't know. It illustrates Einstein's statement that "it's not what we don't know that causes problems; it's what we're sure of that turns out to be incorrect."

Learn a little. Take some history courses. Take some business courses. Take some economics courses. Enroll in some of mine, if you'd like. Attend a military academy. Then go to graduate school. Travel. Visit Hong Kong. Visit Singapore. Live in Europe and North Africa. Live in Japan and Korea. Become a business professor and make your living doing research and teaching. But don't look for more replies; I don't have time to help you get educated. Although I'll be happy to assign you some textbooks to read and some papers to write if you think it would help.

And we're STILL way off the topic of the board.

Best wishes, and farewell.

reply

Your depiction is laughably myopic. The phrase you have eyes yet you can not see comes to mind. You know why people were crammed into this resourceless chunk of rock known as Hong Kong? Because it was a place of growing prosperity. Yes, for a while you had poor people coming there with nothing (those people in the hills you describe). Since they arrived with nothing, they lived in poor places. Now what do you have today? Those same people and their families are now wealthy beyond Americans. All it took was freedom. It didn't happen instantaneously the second they arrived in Hong Kong, but given a few years and their lives improved immensely.

You also dodged the fact that the closer we get to free markets, the more people thrive. You'll notice people absolutely flock into nations with greater freedom. That's why they flock TO Hong Kong and TO the USA, while they try their best to leave the various socialist pits of the world.

Nice try though. Since you're so happy to suggest I edumacate myself with dem der books (what is dem things perfesser?), I suggest you get a better pair of glasses so you can see the world more clearly.

reply

Except if you count scandinavia as one of the socialist "pits" of the world. The governments there are very socialistic in regulations and operation and it by no means make the populations there thrive less?
They have the best living standards of ANY countries in the world, at least Denmark and Norway do (and Copenhagen was also named the best place in the world to live last year), also there isnt a huge urge amongst those populations to leave for Hong Kong or America.

reply

--"Except if you count scandinavia as one of the socialist "pits" of the world. The governments there are very socialistic in regulations and operation and it by no means make the populations there thrive less?"

Yes, actually they do thrive less there than they would otherwise. If they had free markets there they would be incredible places to live. They are merely mediocre today.

--"They have the best living standards of ANY countries in the world, at least Denmark and Norway do (and Copenhagen was also named the best place in the world to live last year), also there isnt a huge urge amongst those populations to leave for Hong Kong or America."

Well first off, this is the living standard as measured by the UN. I've seen the criteria they consider for this "living standard" and basically the test is "How socialist is your country?" If your county is very sociialist, you get a high standard of living grade. Universal Healthcare, for example, is one measure a country is supposed to strive for in order to rise in the UN list. It's bull crap, same as the Nobel Peace Prize.

Furthermore, Iceland is bankrupt, or didn't you hear? The socialist government spent their future generations into oblivion, same as the socialist USA president is doing. It's inter-generational theft plain and simple.

reply

Well look at the amount of homeless, starving and poor people in America compared to Scandinavia. The average citizen suffers alot more in the US than they do there. True that the wealthy top of the citizens in america live alot better, but that doesnt help the rest of the population. And exactly how do you suggest that Universal Healthcare hurts the average citizen, or the living standards?

Besides, Iceland isnt really part of scandinavia. It's mainly Denmark, Norway and Sweden. And yes their bankruptcy was the result of retarded careless spending without any vision for the future. And that was capitalism going out of whack, with all the banks cracking because of no regulations and spending more than they had.

And calling the US president socialist, is insulting to both him and to socialists. By general standards, both democrats and republicans lie to the right of the political center.

reply

The US has *some* homeless people (not a lot) same as any other country. I live in Canada and we've got lots of homeless people here, despite being frigging cold in the winter and being relatively socialist.

In the US you can afford to be homeless more due to warmer climate, so there are more people who adopt that lifestyle there. There are lots of homeless in uber-Socialist countries too, like Cuba. A tiny home can have a dozen people in it there who would otherwise be considered homeless in a country like the US.

The other thing the US has is people from poor South America flocking to the US across the border who, when they get here, don't get a home right away. That's a constantly overturning population there. The US also has a large black population who haven't adapted to the modern westernized culture very well.

As for the Iceland bankruptcy being "capitalism going out of whack". Ha. Hahaha. Hahahahahahahahaha.

What in the blue blazes does a centrally regulated banking system and overspending by the government have to do with capitalism or free markets? You, my friend, need to listen to a little more Ron Paul.

There is no left-right really. It's just the statists vs. the liberals (called libertarians in North America). It's those who support centralized rule rather than diversified, independent and free citizenry.

reply

I still generally think having no homeless people is favorable to a large chunk, especially how US looks after the financial crisis.

Anyway Icelands banks went nationalized AFTER they went whacked out, and then the government had to try and bail them out and get them back on track. It was kinda too late however, careless spending caused it and more regulations or control could probably have saved it, just as the case was in US.

And you still didn't clarify how on earth having universal healthcare could possibly be considered a bad thing? So the less fortunate families that might not be able to support a suddenly sick kid should just be left on their own to get *beep*

Besides Cuba is a cummunist dictated country, which is far from a socialised democratic government.

And yes ofc Ron Paul has some valid points, but he is still a politician and thus still tells people what they want to hear. And he talks alot of crap (like all politicians) with poor background research or fact checking.

reply

--"I still generally think having no homeless people is favorable to a large chunk, especially how US looks after the financial crisis."

Well the thing is, people are free to pursue whatever lifestyle they want. Some people just choose not to go to work day after day. That's their choice. It certainly is not their choice to compel someone to pay for their choice, though. "Hey, I want to live like I make $50,000 per year without actually working. Will you pay for my choice?" Your answer is, of course, no.

--"Anyway Icelands banks went nationalized AFTER they went whacked out, and then the government had to try and bail them out and get them back on track. It was kinda too late however, careless spending caused it and more regulations or control could probably have saved it, just as the case was in US."

If you knew anything about economics you would realize this bankruptcy was the result of an artificially created Krona, artificially manipulated interest rates, and excessive government spending. The "nationalization" of the banks was the final step in this scam, in which the Icelandic taxpayer suddenly becomes responsible for decades of a terrible centrally controlled government financial system.

--"And you still didn't clarify how on earth having universal health care could possibly be considered a bad thing? So the less fortunate families that might not be able to support a suddenly sick kid should just be left on their own to get *beep*"

What a simplistic view. "Yay, free health care for people!" Couldn't possibly be any unintended consequences from that, could there? Guess what, nothing is free. Not even when the government gives it. If you want a government controlled health care system it will become frozen into whatever decade it was formed. It will no longer evolve as you see computers evolving in the free markets. You've noticed how incredible technology evolves in free markets, right? Well kiss that evolution goodbye when it comes under government control.

--"Besides Cuba is a cummunist dictated country, which is far from a socialised democratic government."

Communism is a form of socialism. Look it up in Wikipedia.

--"...but he is still a politician and thus still tells people what they want to hear. And he talks alot of crap (like all politicians) with poor background research or fact checking. "

I categorically reject every word in your sentenced above. He is the only one with the balls to say what is unpopular. He goes to his own party's debates and lets them have it. Here he is doing it right to their faces:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3Bfz4qf_rA

reply

Communism is a form of socialism. Look it up in Wikipedia. <-- yeah, like holding your breath is kind of like breathing.

reply

Nope, doublejake ftw. Close thread.

reply

@doublejake:
I just want to say, that I really enjoyed reading your posts and it is not often you come across someone, who's posts are worthwhile to read - especially on the Internet.

I believe that "Free Trade" or a more laissez-fair approach will/has fail(ed) due to extent to which greed has been cultivated. Without regulations you will obviously see business owners trying to maximize their profits by any means.
Be it outsourcing, cutting wages, layoffs etc.
Obviously at the same time these forces will create wealth for shareholders, business owners, suppliers or any fiscally connected entity.
I do not categorically say that capitalism is a bad economic principle, but we need to carefully extract the overzealous greed, which acts detrimental to the system and its participants itself.
The crux lies in carefully balancing two opposing forces: greed and regulation
Too much regulation will obliterate innovation and entrepreneurship and hurt the US where they have excelled in the past. Greed will eventually lead to the
ultimate exploitation of its workers, the system, the shareholders etc.

Stephen Colbert once said, "Reality has a liberal bias". And I believe that to be true. We are dependent upon each other and require social contact, so we naturally want everyone to be happy.

Take care

reply


I'll bet this thread is better than the film.

reply

Climate change is no more a "political viewpoint" than is the theory of aerodynamics, the theory of relativity, the theory of evolution , the theory of quantum mechanics, the germ theory of disease, or the theory that the black plague in Europe dramatically increased the standard of living.

--------------------------

Sadly, according to some...


NATIONAL SARCASM SOCIETY

Like we need your support...

reply

Don't forget about "The Dinosaur Myth". HOW DARE THEY educate my children with that anti-christian bullpuckey.!!!one1!!

Looks like I picked the wrong day to quit shooting smack...

reply

My 2 cents:

I wish they would spend more time teaching kids HOW to think and less time teaching them WHAT to think. So many people these days are so loud and grating telling you their opinions from the rooftops with megaphones. But when it comes to explaining how they reached their conclusions by citing evidence and providing sound arguments they fall silent. Or worse yet, they spout talking points they don't understand or ar0e completely unintelligible.

reply

You, sir, are a scholar. Spoken by a true free-thinker. I salute you... (my fist is clenched)

Looks like I picked the wrong day to quit shooting smack...

reply

Sounds like you want absolute control over what children are learning. You either can't trust your children or don't want them to think for themselves... So really it looks like you're for indoctrination, as opposed to education. That's the word by the way. Try saying it. Education.

It's kinda hard to teach a horse a language without a magic apple

reply

ABOUT THE THREAD:
I followed all of your thread: Brilliant sarcasm, and humble retraction of the personal innuendo; patient presentation of evidence and experience in response to fog-horn close-mindedness. Your students are fortunate to have you. Best regards.

ABOUT THE MOVIE:
If you get it, you don't need to hear from me, other than to commiserate: how sad that we live in an era when something this provocative still falls on deaf ears...

ABOUT THE DENIERS, everywhere:
Methinks thou dost protest too much. If this is mere propaganda, then stop worrying. What's the harm? But ask yourself, what if the movie is even a little bit right?
I've followed this for three decades now, and the number of people who have lost the ability to think independently of their handlers is deeply distressing.
Even if our civilization survives the environmental catastrophies and inevitable global socio-economic conflicts they will fuel (strike that: "ARE FUELING"), we have become so incapable of reasoned civil discussion, about MUTUAL self-interest.
When you find yourself (as a denier) resorting to such savage personal attacks, look in the mirror and ask yourself why. If you hate others so much, are we not acting like a society that that may not deserve to save itself?
And so, we will be remembered as the AGE OF STUPID indeed.

reply

In a landmark ruling, Mr Justice Michael Burton said that “a belief in man-made climate change … is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations”.

The ruling could open the door for employees to sue their companies for failing to account for their green lifestyles, such as providing recycling facilities or offering low-carbon travel.

John Bowers QC, representing Grainger, had argued that adherence to climate change theory was “a scientific view rather than a philosophical one”, because “philosophy deals with matters that are not capable of scientific proof.”

That argument has now been dismissed by Mr Justice Burton, who last year ruled that the environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore was political and partisan.

The decision allows the tribunal to go ahead, but more importantly sets a precedent for how environmental beliefs are regarded in English law.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
If schools wanted to show some objectivity they would play "Not Evil Just Wrong" in tandem with these alarmist, Catastrophic Climate Change films. They would have Lord Christopher Monckton's lecture debunking Al Gore's silliness, and the ridiculous computer model theories. They would also explain that after millions of years with ice ages, meteors, floods, and volcanic explosions equal to dozens of hydrogen bombs, two-hundred years of industrialism has done little to get the earth down. They might also relate to students that the Government cannot control the climate, not matter what it does and the policies that other countries are now dropping, will do zilch to effect carbon emissions in the next century.

It's official - man made climate change is an ideology, not science.

reply

>>"It is hard hitting but I do not think people will sadly listen to the message."

Why would someone listen to a film sadly?
Why would you even want them to?

"Hey Sally.. do you feel like watching this film sadly?"
"Sure Mr. Rodgers, just a minute while I get into a sad mood."


I hope you are one of the "kids" you mention and not one of the teachers.
Stay away from films in class and open up that english grammar book once in a while.

reply

Well, after all, it is "The Age of Stupid".

Ask your doctor if thinking is right for you

reply

Some interesting points. We as a school obtained the licence to be the first film within the UK to preview the film. I personally thought it was a hard hitting film with a powerful message.

reply

Human induced global warming is a myth. Climate change is a natural function of the environment.

Read what I said closely and carefully, not just what you think I said.

If you fail to believe that climate change is a natural occurrence, then perhaps you would be so kind as to render your hypothesis on the ice ages that occurred BEFORE humans existed and were pumping "green house gasses" into the atmosphere.

reply

All the comments illustrate what we think about the USA population.
No kind of mental health, only political discusion meanwhile the Earth is dying.
But USA is not going to survive, is going to dissappear as the other countries in the world.
And there is a point of no return.

reply

Human induced global warming is a myth. Climate change is a natural function of the environment.

Read what I said closely and carefully, not just what you think I said.

Ok. I read it very closely and very carefully.

You appear to be implying that it is a binary question - that because climate is not naturally steady-state that humans can have no impact on the climate.

Does that summarize your belief accurately?
Seems like something that is obviously false to me.
But if that's your faith, then by definition it does not have to make sense.

reply