Originally Posted by Geof 
So what really are you after? |
Geof, you asked this of XYZDonna. I believe that Donna is employing the strategy espoused in this documant on
"telling the GW story better":
"Treating climate change as beyond argument
Much of the noise in the climate change discourse comes from argument and counter-argument, and it is
our recommendation that, at least for popular communications, interested agencies now need to treat the
argument as having been won. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that
individual actions are effective. This must be done by stepping away from the ‘advocates debate’ described
earlier, rather than by stating and re-stating these things as fact.
The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken. The certainty of
the Government’s new climate-change slogan – ‘Together this generation will tackle climate change’ (Defra
2006) – gives an example of this approach. It constructs, rather than claims, its own factuality.
Where science is invoked, it now needs to be as ‘lay science’ – offering lay explanations for what is being
treated as a simple established scientific fact, just as the earth’s rotation or the water cycle are considered."
Donna wants a reduction in CO2 emissions. You and others explain that CO2 does not seem to be the proven cause of GW, and even if it was, reducing CO2 significantly won't have much of an effect, even if it could be done, which is highly unlikely. Donna says yes and seems to get the point; then immediately goes back to "CO2 can be reduced", "will be reduced", "must be reduced".
They contend that the number of guns in the hands of private citizens should be reduced. A number of people patiently explain that disarming law-abiding citizens does not reduce crime and tends to make life easier for crooks. These arguments are backed up by FBI crime stats and logic. The "Donna-types" follow by stating that they concede the point, but would still like to see a reduction in the number of guns in circulation. Except in Donna's case, read "CO2" in place of "guns".
I think Donna should start emitting less CO2 by not quoting entire posts when this is not pertinent to the discussion. All of those bits add up and it takes electrical power to push them through the system. Most of that power is generated from coal. So please Donna, you need to do your bit to conserve energy and cut pollution otherwise no one can take you seriously...