XPost: alt.global-warming, sci.skeptic   
   From: sam@spade.invalid   
      
   Paul Aubrin  wrote:   
   > Le 20/02/2026 à 13:11, Malte Runz a écrit :   
   > > Trying to catch up, I see. But posting a link to an article is trivial   
   > > if you don't use it to back up your statements:   
   > >   
   > > "The claim is that the environment needs all of our pollution in order   
   > > to thrive!"   
   > >   
   > > Who claimed that?   
   > Waste, trash, garbage for some living things can be useful for others.   
   > Exemple : mushrooms grow on manure.   
   > Every animal exhales carbon dioxide as a waste of internal energy   
   > production, but it is the only source of carbon atoms for plants.   
   >   
   > >> It never occurs to me that people would see a cited video or ANY   
   > >> media piece as anything other than a starting point...   
   > > So, why didn't you take the time to find a scientific paper and   
   > > address that, instead of posting a link to a kid on Facebook?   
   >   
   > Why do you think that no idea is worth saying except if it has been   
   > published in an academic paper ? The scientific method consists to first   
   > observe and take note, then imagine hypothesis and discuss them, then   
   > confront them with observations, then, eventually write and publish   
   > them. When you work, you apply the same kind of process, but never   
   > publish your production, you make things and sell them.   
      
      
   Why did you snip alt.atheism?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)