4 ms·
The worst case scenario is more like a "Clathrate gun" doomsday. While the worst case is improbable, I do believe the priors you use to evaluate the risk and co
by krastanov 8y ago
The worst case scenario is more like a "Clathrate gun" doomsday. While the worst case is improbable, I do believe the priors you use to evaluate the risk and cost of global warming might be a bit optimistic. And it seems contradictory to say that the brunt of costs will be paid by the developed world and then admit that the costs include the migrant from locations on Earth rendered uninhabitable. Lastly, you are assuming that the political climate will permit us to deal intelligently, compassionately, and fiscally efficiently with migrants. The current political climate seems to contradict that assumption.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
- User23 8y agoMay as well worry about the solar wind blowing the atmosphere away. That's also possible after all. It's surprising to me that in a technologically astute and optimistic forum like this one, there would be so much resistance to the idea that engineering solutions to heating would be easier than engineering solutions to cooling. Because anthropogenic or not, the climate is going to change, and keep changing, so either we adapt, we engineer it, or we die.
- krastanov 8y agoYou missed my point. Of course it would be great to have a solution for every eventuality. However, the climate rapidly warming is the imminent danger. And it is the rate of change, not the final value, that is the most worrisome.
- User23 8y agoI didn't miss your point, and on the principle of charity I'm going to assume you didn't miss mine.