Select to expand quote
cammd said..
HG on the other hand will accept nothing other than full on compliance with his view, read his posts, he is basically creating a us and them divide and the "them" are evil and bringing about the end of western civilisation, he actually wrote that, that's extreme and its a borderline jihadist type of attitude.
Camm, you do realise that it was TA that claimed that the ulterior motive of those who want to cut greenhouse gas emissions and use more renewable energy is to quote "end western civilisation"?
So in other words, by your own admission TA is the extremist....since I didn't write that, TA did.
Let me put this in a bit of perspective....
I'm no expert in climate science, so I defer to the experts on the matter.
Since I have deferred to the scientists, I see meaningful action to address the problem as an
insurance policy. This is exactly what the world did with CFC's and the hole in the ozone layer. It was seen as an insurance policy and it's working. It didn't bring about the "end of western civilisation" either.
Tony Abbott here on the other hand thinks we should do nothing and he believes I and others who share my views (most of the world) are attempting to "bring about the end of western civilisation".
If I'm wrong in 30 years or so we'll have cut atmospheric pollution to almost zero and have energy systems that are sustainable in the long term. If TA is wrong we'll be totally stuffed and we'll have millions of refugees knocking on our doorstep.
So who's the "jihadist" - the guy who is prudent and decides to take out insurance, or the guy running around with zero evidence claiming it's going to "end western civilisation"?