Where should the focus be - the problems or the solutions?
 

"anon-e-moose" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"anon-e-moose" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"anon-e-moose" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
...
Bjorn Lomborgy has some good ideas. The Democrats in the Senate
walked out when
he came on after Al Gore, but the guy has some good ideas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs
--
John H

For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/ygqxs5v
"The Democrats in the Senate walked out when he came on after Al
Gore...." So, you're not really interested in solutions.

"Solving" climate change with $50B is dumb, because it's not possible
with that amount of money. He also has decided that for $150B/year
you can only delay adverse climate change by 6 years. Not.

He supposes that things like safe drinking water and malaria are not
related to adverse climate change. They are.

He's playing games with statistics. While interesting, it's not
proprosing any solutions and is, at best, disingenuous.

Obviously you are not comfortable with the prospect of prioritizing
problem solving based on "the best bang for the buck". Why not?

Obviously, you're unable to think on your own.
Has anybody ever told you to go f@#$ yourself?

Several times. Mostly by people like you who are too juvenile to think
for themselves.
He's got a good point about
prioritizing, but he went astray when he started making comments as I
mentioned.
The guy has 20 minutes to talk. It would be impossible to lay out the
worlds problems and provide you with solutions in that amount of time.

Then read his book.

He made no connection between health and adverse climate change.

Exactly.

Sure there is some connection. So what. The health issues are more
solvable than adverse climate change, whatever that means. I think you
really need to define it before you attempt to fix it.\

So, destroy the environment, and in the process cure malaria. Define
what? It's been defined endlessly. As I said, try some facts from time to
time.

He made assumptions about how money is allocated that don't jibe with
the facts of how money is allocated.
I'd love to here your facts of how money is allocated. Do you advocate
the Obama method?

Which is.... ? I advocate not destroying our planet. If that's "Obama's"
method, I'm all for it.

Nothing wrong with the "best bang for the
buck" type of problem solving.
Hooray


But, there's a big problem with his
underlying assumptions.
Gee. I think you mentioned that before.

Which you're unable to address.

Which underlying assumption bothers you? And why. If you weren't so
unhinged, we might be able to talk with you instead of at you.
Wanna talk boats? Didn't think so.


You're the one who wants to cure athlete's foot on a gangrenous leg.

Where are all your "boat" threads? Didn't think so.

--
Nom=de=Plume