Global warming

[David Horn]

(10-24-2017, 02:11 AM)Galen Wrote:

(10-22-2017, 04:51 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: What do we know?  There have been numerous environmental predictions that have been made, none of them have come true, and the moral panic that is being whipped up fits nicely into the per-packaged solutions of a certain cabal of individuals.  And no I'm not speaking of these scientists--though those polls are probably a scam.  A nuclear engineer is a scientist sure, but does he really know shit about the environment beyond what the average everyman does?  Probably not.  Furthermore science does not concern itself with consensus--that's politics--it concerns itself with facts and simply put we do not have enough facts to say for certain what is going to happen with the climate.

One thing you have to realize is that PBR and most Silent and Boomers grew up in a time where people were taught to trust in authority.  In the main they still act that way and with the GIs and Lost running things it wasn't much of a problem but the Boomers have proven themselves to be incompetent.  In the interest, probably futile, of imparting useful knowledge to PBR I have included the following video. <VIDEO DELETED AS REPETITOUS>

Talk about false equivalency.  Nothing on earth is 100% safe, so yes, some people have side effects from inoculations of all types.  Now back to the climate scientists.  The only point of disagreement is how quickly we get to catastrophe if we don't change our ways.  Being scientists, they speak of future events in terms of probability, since assured results are impossible to determine.  In the >80% probability range, effects are loss of most forests, rising ocean levels that devastate most of the coastal cities of the world and other effects to numerous to list.  Your video geek uses hyperbole.  I'll take the former.

Galen Wrote:

Kinser Wrote:Say what you will about Nomads but one thing we do know is a scam when we see one.  As Galen pointed out, if one has an IQ above room temperature (in F--doesn't really work in C) and one is also a Nomad you either develop a bullshit detector or end up in the morgue---or worse.

No kidding, the other thing Xers have had to learn the hard way is that sometimes all of the choices are bad.  In that case you just pick the one the sucks the least.

If addressing climate change is a net positive, why not?  Here's an incomplete list of arguments for continuing the flight from fossil fuels:

• Fossil fuels are depleting, but renewables never do.  
  
• The cost of fossil fuels has to rise as depletion continues, but renewables are declining in cost with no likelihood they won't continue this trend.  
  
• Renewables are everywhere, so getting energy requires a smaller military -- a net positive.
  
• Zero carbon will slow climate change.  
  
• We already have a lot baked-in that will happen anyway; why make it worse?  
  
• New industries create new jobs, and fossil fuels are now low on job creation or even job retention.
  

Where's the downside?