3 ms·

“We” have much more than that. I find it borderline amoral that the IPCC do nothing to stop the catastrophist interpretations of the actual science.

onion2k 8y ago
“We” have much more than that. I find it borderline amoral that the IPCC do nothing to stop the catastrophist interpretations of the actual science. We don't though. Not really. Not because we have to act within 12 years, but because we have to act at some point. If we always say that the given deadline is wrong and we have more time then eventually we'll be wrong. It makes a lot of sense to start now if only because that way we can spread the cost out over a longer period of time.
- hanniabu 8y ago
  Also that "more time" means unbearable living conditions. People think that of humans can still live on the Earth that it means we have more time, but the fact is that we'll be living in a planet that can no longer support us comfortably due to crop limitations, mass plant die off, mass species die off on land and sea, wildfires droughts and other natural disasters, etc
- ThomPete 8y ago
  Yes we do. I would challenge you to find the actual science that shows that we have less time. Actually demonstrated not just speculated. Furthermore the idea of stopping climate change is in itself completely up for grasp. What does that actually mean, what consequences are we prepared to pay? Is it better to halt growth, are we ready to invade China to stop them are we ready to stop poor countries from getting access to cheap reliable energy sources just because they are dirty? What are you even doing here if you actually really thought we had 10 years left? Why are you supporting the very system that apparently is going to destroy earth? So start now with what at what cost? I am personally not going to support any attempt at halting growth as growth is the only way we can actually pay for investment in cleaner energies and if the result really is catastrophic why are people so against nuclear which is the greenest, safest, most scalable, plentiful energy form we have? Climate catastrophism helps exactly no one. It paralyzes whole societies and makes them completely irrational making irrational decisions. So thanks but no thanks. I take my chances with a world using growth to establish better and better solutions not forcing superficially insufficient and unrealiable energy sources such as wind and solar. Each to their own of course but it's not getting my support.

onion2k 8y ago

“We” have much more than that. I find it borderline amoral that the IPCC do nothing to stop the catastrophist interpretations of the actual science. We don't though. Not really. Not because we have to act within 12 years, but because we have to act at some point. If we always say that the given deadline is wrong and we have more time then eventually we'll be wrong. It makes a lot of sense to start now if only because that way we can spread the cost out over a longer period of time.

hanniabu 8y ago
Also that "more time" means unbearable living conditions. People think that of humans can still live on the Earth that it means we have more time, but the fact is that we'll be living in a planet that can no longer support us comfortably due to crop limitations, mass plant die off, mass species die off on land and sea, wildfires droughts and other natural disasters, etc
ThomPete 8y ago
Yes we do. I would challenge you to find the actual science that shows that we have less time. Actually demonstrated not just speculated. Furthermore the idea of stopping climate change is in itself completely up for grasp. What does that actually mean, what consequences are we prepared to pay? Is it better to halt growth, are we ready to invade China to stop them are we ready to stop poor countries from getting access to cheap reliable energy sources just because they are dirty? What are you even doing here if you actually really thought we had 10 years left? Why are you supporting the very system that apparently is going to destroy earth? So start now with what at what cost? I am personally not going to support any attempt at halting growth as growth is the only way we can actually pay for investment in cleaner energies and if the result really is catastrophic why are people so against nuclear which is the greenest, safest, most scalable, plentiful energy form we have? Climate catastrophism helps exactly no one. It paralyzes whole societies and makes them completely irrational making irrational decisions. So thanks but no thanks. I take my chances with a world using growth to establish better and better solutions not forcing superficially insufficient and unrealiable energy sources such as wind and solar. Each to their own of course but it's not getting my support.