Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
Not that we should sit back and do nothing.
Just saying that there is a chance we won't be able to stop the warming trend, and a hundred years from the Canadian North will be a lot different.
|
Sorry to double challenge you, but cannot let this one go. The first quote wasn't entirely a challenge anyway.
That is PRECISELY what you are saing in your 'but' statement. It's as clear as the Edmonton homer we had such a laugh about in the 'Edmonton is no good thread.'
Your second statement is in complete ideologal and practical opposition to your first one. It's not even a question of viewpoints or misunderstanding though I'm preyty sure you'll argue it as such for a page or two.
Not saying we should do nothing... But chances we can't do enough to matter doing anything, so why do anything?
I'm not saying we should do nothing, but why rock the boat for a cause to big to fix?
Not saying we should do anything, but my kids will live in a time where it will be essiet to tackle this problem.
Hey, I'm not saying do nothing. But it's still on the table.
Please check put my other post in the other environment thread. Over simplified? For sure. Preachy? Yeah probably. The ultimate response to 'is the cost of the solution worth the disease? Absolutely.
Oh and if you disagree on your my assesment on your statements making sense as a whole... please... before you call me out on putting words in your mouth, simply explain to me how the two statements actually can live in a universe together in harmony.
If you can do this? I retract.
Your second statement does, in not that many words, say we should consider doing nothing.