I believe it was in the schoolyard, lunch period, when you rebutted my arguments with this bit of technical data:Where did I say Matt wants to end all human progress?
*Oh noes... we ... we can't do things! Because things have costs! We must stop doing things immediately!
This, coming from someone too verbally challenged to know the meanings of the words "meet" vs. "exceed." :doh: Who tried to disprove the negative effects of rising food consumption by showing ... there was rising food consumption. :doh: Who claimed trees don't count as resources. :doh: Who defends someone who thinks CFLs offer no energy savings, and who opposes wind because "it's ugly." :doh:I agree I said he was scientifically illiterate (I didn't say dumbfuck, but the sentiment was there).
Answer begging the question. You have failed to substantiate that overpopulation is not a problem (only that people are eating more food!) The reason rational skeptics don't "call out" overpopulation concerns is because they are rational concerns. Contrarians like yourself are not skeptics.my first entry was discussing why rational skeptics do not tend to call out overpopulation hysteria, noting that some have predicted doomsday scenario
As for prognostication prowess, I recall as a child being told that the scientists & engineers would soon transform the Sahara into a lush garden. How's that coming along?