Hey look, it's a climate change thread!

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-28-2017, 02:56 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Ooohhh a Gary Johnson quote, providing you knew that was one of his sarcastic answers on climate change....lol

Now that you mention it, I remotely remember, but it played no role in my comment.  

[*wildcats forever*]

I've just deleted several posts because of insults and name-calling. The exchange of opinions, and respectful discussion of differences are most welcome, but when personal attacks enter into the thread, all integrity is lost. While things have been loosened up for our P&R enthusiasts, respectful discourse will always be the goal here. Many thanks to those who do strive to keep it civil. We want everyone who wants to participate here to always be comfortable without the aggravation of being personally attacked. If anyone has any question/comment, contact any staff member for additional appropriate information via private messaging.

Warnings have been issued as a result. If not heeded, time outs will be next. It's that simple.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-28-2017, 04:26 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: I've just deleted several posts because of insults and name-calling. The exchange of opinions, and respectful discussion of differences are most welcome, but when personal attacks enter into the thread, all integrity is lost. While things have been loosened up for our P&R enthusiasts, respectful discourse will always be the goal here. Many thanks to those who do strive to keep it civil. We want everyone who wants to participate here to always be comfortable without the aggravation of being personally attacked. If anyone has any question/comment, contact any staff member for additional appropriate information via private messaging.

Warnings have been issued as a result. If not heeded, time outs will be next. It's that simple.

Oh, man . . . 

This just gave me an awesome idea for a tattoo.  "Only God Can Moderate Me"

I just need to pick the right font.  

Definitely black and grey.

[Beaker]

How about this as a way to consider the climate change debate:

Scenario 1 - proceed from this day as if the science is correct. Humans buy fully into it and begin to take steps to correct climate change before it is too late. 50 years from now, we discover the science was incorrect, and that the climate change was totally natural.

Scenario 2 - proceed from this day as if the science is totally wrong. Humans continue doing what we have been doing. 50 years from now we find out the science was totally correct and humans were causing accelerated climate change.

What is the downside of scenario 1 vs scenario 2?

In scenario 1 we have further developed and enhanced alternative fuels and energy methods, we have developed the infrastructure for these alternative energy sources, we have lessened our dependence on foreign oil, we have reduced all types of pollution, etc. In short, we have a cleaner, more sustainable way of living on this planet.

In scenario 2, we end up in a tenuous position, maybe beyond the tipping point of serious ecological damage, and look back and say "we knew this 50 years ago, why didn't we do anything back then?" In short, we're more screwed.

When you look at it that way, there really is not much of a downside to proceeding as if all the science is correct at this point.

[GMDino]

(02-28-2017, 09:54 PM)Beaker Wrote: How about this as a way to consider the climate change debate:

Scenario 1 - proceed from this day as if the science is correct. Humans buy fully into it and begin to take steps to correct climate change before it is too late. 50 years from now, we discover the science was incorrect, and that the climate change was totally natural.

Scenario 2 - proceed from this day as if the science is totally wrong. Humans continue doing what we have been doing. 50 years from now we find out the science was totally correct and humans were causing accelerated climate change.

What is the downside of scenario 1 vs scenario 2?

In scenario 1 we have further developed and enhanced alternative fuels and energy methods, we have developed the infrastructure for these alternative energy sources, we have lessened our dependence on foreign oil, we have reduced all types of pollution, etc. In short, we have a cleaner, more sustainable way of living on this planet.

In scenario 2, we end up in a tenuous position, maybe beyond the tipping point of serious ecological damage, and look back and say "we knew this 50 years ago, why didn't we do anything back then?" In short, we're more screwed.

When you look at it that way, there really is not much of a downside to proceeding as if all the science is correct at this point.

None of that matters Beaker because it's all about money.  It will mean a smaller profit margin and that is completely unacceptable!!!11!!!!1!!! 



Humans are just completely shortsighted and selfish.  That's the whole story.  If we weren't we would fight over who has the most of anything and help each other instead.

[*michaelsean*]

Well if humans as a species are short sighted and selfish, then that is just our nature with someone applying their own moral code to it.