You're posts are rather aggressive of late Jamiet. Perhaps the better OP would be to ask why the media is not reporting on an article like this. I appreciate you posting, it's a rather interesting read.

I no longer have the time or energy to be polite all the time. Some things actually matter, and some things don't.

Plus, Jmo, what was aggressive about my OP, that's been on the front page of this forum for over 24 hours without anyone commenting on it?

Nothing.

What does that tell you?

The aggressiveness is in the implication that gay marriage does not matter. Being polite shouldn't be a burden. If it is, you may want to take a long hard look in the mirror and figure out why you are inherently unhappy.

And OP's that are simply a link don't often do well. As I said though, rather interesting read, and thank you for supplying it.

It tells you that I was drunk posting last night and only read it now. Also, people care more about what they do with their genitalia than just about anything.

Who implied that gay marriage does not matter?

I certainly didn't.

You just itching for a fight - so here you go: Global Warming due to man made causes is a load of bullshit - there - knock yourself out.

another thought: what if carbon emissions serve an a proxy for how sustainable an economy is in relation to a decreasing supply of oil, or at least cheap oil? If more and more of your resources are tied up in getting more oil, that isn't a recipe for the future.

Also, even if humans aren't causing global warming how much can streams take pollutants being dumped in them, etc.

The thing with this ruling is that I wouldn't call it science-backed.

Sure, a lot of people try to claim it's a scientific consensus that CO2 is evil, but if you were to actually objectively review the scientific articles, you'd find it isn't.

Presenting a faux-consensus as an actual consensus is one thing, but if the court then proceeds to use that faux-consensus as evidence..
That's scary.

The ruling and its implications are fine by me. The way that ruling came to be is scary.

"...my OP...that's been on the front page of this forum for over 24 hours without anyone commenting on it?
...
What does that tell you?"

People were out busy getting gay married.

Damn Dirty Dutch

@ steephie: What's interesting is, the basis of the ruling wasn't purely scientific - it was also based on the gap between the Dutch government's official position about the severity of the climate change threat, and their planned actions to counter that threat.

Hmm I guess that makes more sense. If the government claims something is fact and says it will do something about it but doesn't do it, that's wrong of course.

That's pretty much the crux of the case, yeah.

I think you could sue a whole lot of governments for that though. I guess it's a good thing that we actually hold ourselves to our words.