droid
Well-known member
On the contrary, Ive offered both psychological and philosophical arguments which counter the initial assumption and placed them in the context of the actual history of climate responses and the forces that have stymied it. I then critiqued the motivation and utility of the assertion.
The initial suggestion is either false or has such a minor effect that it is negligible. The linking an awareness or imagining of possible disaster with desire for same is deeply tenuous, and when specifically applied to individuals, offensive.
So Ive attacked the basis, the substance, the usefulness and the motivation.
The initial suggestion is either false or has such a minor effect that it is negligible. The linking an awareness or imagining of possible disaster with desire for same is deeply tenuous, and when specifically applied to individuals, offensive.
So Ive attacked the basis, the substance, the usefulness and the motivation.