[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Brashears on Hanson



Yuri Kuchinsky (yuku@io.org) wrote:
: Michael Tobis (tobis@scram.ssec.wisc.edu) wrote:
: : Yuri Kuchinsky (yuku@io.org) wrote:

: : : Unfortunately, they aren't assumptions at all, but a description of
: : : reality.

: : An incorrect one, alas.

: There's only one.

There's plenty of descriptions. Here is a fine example of you paying
attention to how you fell about your opponents, rather than to what
they say.

: : : The destruction of Nature will inevitably result in social
: : : (self)destruction.

: : Perhaps so, but using invalid arguments to support this position,
: : as Hanson does, serves to discredit rather than justify such a
: : position. 

: Which invalid arguments?

Handwaving about entropy which neglects to do the numbers and thus
misapplies physical reasoning to cases where the physics doesn't apply.

This has been hashed to death endlessly on this newsgroup. I don't
fell like going another round. Check www.altavista.com for back articles.

: : As far as your statement goes, perhaps you would do better to
: : qualify "destruction" and/or define "Nature". To a physicist,
: : for instance, your position is utterly meaningless.

: Maybe to you. Have you read the World Scientists' Letter on Environment? 

Yes, and I would sign it if anyone asked me to. It says nothing about
entropy.

...

: : For myself, since I do think that environmental problems are indeed
: : serious, and that progress on them requires careful reasoning,
: : your and Hansen's shabby arguments and vain emoting make me feel 
: : substantially worse.

: I don't think you're too sincere about seeing the problems for
: environment... Your tone says something quite different.

Ah yes. Well, we don't solve problems with tone. That's the point.

An angelic chorus singing the words of Rush Limbaugh still would
be false propaganda. How pure your tone is has absolutely nothing to do 
with whether you are making sense.

mt




References: