3 ms·

No. That's like saying "Why go to the trouble of putting seat belts in cars, since so many people survive car crashes?" Hopefully you'll see where to start.

by girzel 8y ago

ThomPete 8y ago
Not really. How does that seatbelt work? This is the problem, you dont know.
- yongjik 8y ago
  So let me rephrase: you're saying that increasing carbon tax (for example) is a very dangerous policy because we don't exactly know how it would work out, but at the same time you are confident that our civilization will figure out solution to widespread crop failure, raising sea level, ocean acidification, (possibly) increased amount of superstorms, and a hundred million refugees spread across the world? Of course all mega-large-scale problems look like achievable goals, as long as you don't pay too much attention on who's gonna pay for all that ...
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    With what? Where have I said anything about carbon tax or that it's dangerous? That's not what I am saying at all.
    - BLKNSLVR 8y ago
      That's the implication inherent in your commentary. To me (and possibly most people downvoting your comments), it sounds as if you're saying that we should deal with the symptoms and not the cause because we've seen symptoms like this before so I assume we can deal with it. To reduce my position to a couple of cliches: A stitch in time saves nine An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure
      - ThomPete 8y ago
        I am saying that neither you nor anyone else has given a single example of something we know will happen and can't deal with today. Not a single example. What we see on the other hand is plenty of political attempts to try and force specific technologies in which aren't even close to being able to provide enough energy Solar and Wind being the most famous here. They are going to be great as extensions but we are not going to live in a world where they provide the majority of the energy and thus they aren't fundamental solutions to the problem they are distractions and they aren't even that green. Thats a good example of what happens when we try and solve a problem which we don't even know will show up and if it does in a 100 years form now. The difference in cost between solving a problem with technology and methods 100 years from now should be pretty obviously huge and thus it make no sense when we can't even point to a specific problem but just speculate about it. That's what absurd here.
        BLKNSLVR 8y ago
        Scientific modelling has given plenty of examples, many of which have been mentioned here and you've dismissed them out of hand because, in your opinion, 'modelling' is apparently unscientific. What other method does humanity have of estimating future effects? If you don't accept the modelling scenarios then you won't accept anything. Continually asking for something that is impossible to provide is what's absurd.
        ThomPete 8y ago
        Computer models have been giving plenty of examples of all sorts of outcomes. It sounds like you don't know how computer modeling or science works. It's not what I think it's a reality.
        BLKNSLVR 8y ago
        I think various qualified folks might have something to say about that. Yes, modelling gives plenty of varying outcomes, that's what it's meant to do. Conclusions aren't drawn on single instances. They're drawn from running many models with varying input assumptions and conditions, and then seeing what the most likely outcomes are. There will be some outcomes that fall within the "nothing to worry about" range, but they seem to be very low percentage likelihood. Not zero, but highly unlikely. Isn't that how computer modelling and the scientific method work?

No. That's like saying "Why go to the trouble of putting seat belts in cars, since so many people survive car crashes?" Hopefully you'll see where to start.

by girzel 8y ago

No. That's like saying "Why go to the trouble of putting seat belts in cars, since so many people survive car crashes?" Hopefully you'll see where to start.

ThomPete 8y ago

Not really. How does that seatbelt work? This is the problem, you dont know.

yongjik 8y ago
So let me rephrase: you're saying that increasing carbon tax (for example) is a very dangerous policy because we don't exactly know how it would work out, but at the same time you are confident that our civilization will figure out solution to widespread crop failure, raising sea level, ocean acidification, (possibly) increased amount of superstorms, and a hundred million refugees spread across the world? Of course all mega-large-scale problems look like achievable goals, as long as you don't pay too much attention on who's gonna pay for all that ...
- ThomPete 8y ago
  With what? Where have I said anything about carbon tax or that it's dangerous? That's not what I am saying at all.
  - BLKNSLVR 8y ago
    That's the implication inherent in your commentary. To me (and possibly most people downvoting your comments), it sounds as if you're saying that we should deal with the symptoms and not the cause because we've seen symptoms like this before so I assume we can deal with it. To reduce my position to a couple of cliches: A stitch in time saves nine An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      I am saying that neither you nor anyone else has given a single example of something we know will happen and can't deal with today. Not a single example. What we see on the other hand is plenty of political attempts to try and force specific technologies in which aren't even close to being able to provide enough energy Solar and Wind being the most famous here. They are going to be great as extensions but we are not going to live in a world where they provide the majority of the energy and thus they aren't fundamental solutions to the problem they are distractions and they aren't even that green. Thats a good example of what happens when we try and solve a problem which we don't even know will show up and if it does in a 100 years form now. The difference in cost between solving a problem with technology and methods 100 years from now should be pretty obviously huge and thus it make no sense when we can't even point to a specific problem but just speculate about it. That's what absurd here.
      - BLKNSLVR 8y ago
        Scientific modelling has given plenty of examples, many of which have been mentioned here and you've dismissed them out of hand because, in your opinion, 'modelling' is apparently unscientific. What other method does humanity have of estimating future effects? If you don't accept the modelling scenarios then you won't accept anything. Continually asking for something that is impossible to provide is what's absurd.
        ThomPete 8y ago
        Computer models have been giving plenty of examples of all sorts of outcomes. It sounds like you don't know how computer modeling or science works. It's not what I think it's a reality.
        BLKNSLVR 8y ago
        I think various qualified folks might have something to say about that. Yes, modelling gives plenty of varying outcomes, that's what it's meant to do. Conclusions aren't drawn on single instances. They're drawn from running many models with varying input assumptions and conditions, and then seeing what the most likely outcomes are. There will be some outcomes that fall within the "nothing to worry about" range, but they seem to be very low percentage likelihood. Not zero, but highly unlikely. Isn't that how computer modelling and the scientific method work?