5 ms·
Then please refute the "energy is the largest contributing industry" statement with some fact rather than rhetoric. In your metaphor, this is like blaming the
by 1stop 13y ago
Then please refute the "energy is the largest contributing industry" statement with some fact rather than rhetoric.
In your metaphor, this is like blaming the drug dealers for the "drugs being sold on the street" problem. The drug dealer has no interest in selling you a 'drug manufacturing kit' for your home, he/she wants to keep you coming back.
I was pointing out, that given it is a humanistic/moral issue. The corporate 'profit motive' has nothing to provide. We have the resources to do everything we want to do, and it makes ethical sense. But a rational organisation (which is, by definition driven by profit) would never invest in this, because it would reduce its profit.
This isn't an argument of convenience, this is a "point out the fucking obvious"
- 001sky 13y agoThis is a political argument about taxes, and has nothing to do with either climate or science. If you want to tax these people, go ahead...get together a bunch of special interests and some money and go lobby the relevant folks. "I was pointing out, that given it is a humanistic/moral issue." It may very well be indeed. But in the context of the submitted article and its discussion, it is proving the point about the use and abuse of data and science. There is a difference between a "moral use of science" and dressing up a "moral/political special interest position" as a <position of science>. As I am sure you would appreciate.
- 1stop 13y agoI have no 'special interest'. I was responding to the idea that "we can't respond because of starving babies" comment. That is factually untrue, and my response was based on fact, there is money, and it could be used, no babies would stave. But I pointed out it was never considered because if the profit motive. You seem to be railing against a position I am not holding. To simplify: "We could do everything we thought was needed to decrease global warming and no baby would need to starve". I'm not saying: - We need to do something - We are the cause of global warming - Doing the things we think will reduce global warming will actually reduce global warming.