--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" <compost1uk@> wrote: > <snip> > [quoting "a philosophy professor from New Zealand":] > > > > "Apocalyptic scenarios are a diversion from real > > problems poverty, terrorism, broken financial > > systems needing intelligent attention. > > As if poverty, terrorism, and broken financial > systems didn't have their own apocalyptic scenarios.
Well no. That's exactly the trouble with poverty. It is NOT "apocalyptic". Neither is terrorism going to bring the "end of the world". Nor even banks going bust. The world CAN live with poverty very easily and very well, thank you very much. And will carry on doing so all the more in my view if we fret irrationally over CO2 in such an apocalyptic way. If false, the alarmism will represent a gigantic diversion from the real issues. That will have substantial consequences for the needy. We need rice and water, not wind farms. So is it false? Now there's a question. Poverty is a fact. Terrorism is a fact. These need our full attention. I do not consider CO2 alarmism to be reasonably "based on fact" (sound science). A decade ago I was similarly sceptical about Y2K and puzzled as to how this "meme" (if that is the right concept) had gained such enormous power.
