4 ms·

The consequences of climate change might not be as bad as the consequences of preventing it. That's a pretty important thing to figure out because what if you e

The consequences of climate change might not be as bad as the consequences of preventing it. That's a pretty important thing to figure out because what if you end up creating a bigger calamity than you prevent? What does "heavy losses" mean? If you don't quantify it, it means the same as "light losses". Is it worse than WWII? Worse than WWI? Worse than Communism? Worse than the Spanish Flu? Worse than AIDS? Worse than malaria? Worse than smoking? These things each killed many millions in the past century and somehow civilization has never been better! So before worrying about preaching, first figure it out yourself. Otherwise you're nothing more than an amplifier for some other activist's arbitrary emotions.

brainless 6y ago
Do you not think you are doing the same, just in reverse? I am at least trying my best to get out of "my" selfish being and ask a question for our entire planet. And what you want to do is kill that very question because you want to go to the grocery store and buy milk, right? Think, for once, what if this is actually happening like every climate scientist says. What if the oil cos actually wanted to squash all evidence? What if you are their agent? What do they have to lose if we start listening to the scientists - everything.
- lopmotr 6y ago
  You're missing my point. It is that you don't know what the consequences of climate change will be. Not even any kind of estimate at all. So how can you be sure it's worth the cost of preventing? Even scientists hardly have any idea. I'm not saying they're wrong, I'm saying they don't know. What if we really do get increased flooding, storms, etc. like every climate scientist says, and we cope just fine? I'm not trying to kill any question. I'm trying to ask a question! What will the consequences of climate change be? It's a pretty important one. If you can only speak in emotional language like "calamity" then you don't have any idea at all.
  - brainless 6y ago
    Just check what the representatives from island nations have to say and I think you will have a clearer idea. It is easy to disregard evidence when it stares at you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change_on_island_nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change_on_i...
    - lopmotr 6y ago
      No. Island nations aren't big enough to be a major global problem.
  - throwaway936482 6y ago
    The problem with this argument is that climate change presents an existential risk for our current global civilisation and ability to support the numbers of people currently living on earth. If climate change (along with the other types of environmental destruction we are currently reaping) is as bad as predicted (and scientists are actually fairly certain of the likely impacts. Read the IPCC reports and then remember that these are the outcome of a process designed to produce the most conservative estimates) then we face an enormous die off of the world's population as large swathes of the planet become essentially uninhabitable at current densities. The costs of mitigating climate change are, in comparison, tiny. A few percent of GDP if we don't replace current polluting industries with cleaner ones. Given this it makes sense to mitigate against climate change, even if it turns out that the predictions are overly pessimistic, because the risks are so high. It's similar to taking out fire insurance. Sure the chances of your house or business burning down are pretty low, but the impact on you if they do is so high that it makes sense to pay the relatively low cost.
    - Joeri 6y ago
      Where in the IPCC reports do you find an existential risk to humanity? I’ve read most of AR5 and I haven’t come across it. I’m worried about climate change, but activists like extinction rebellion are far from telling the truth, and the doomsaying is preventing action.

brainless 6y ago

Do you not think you are doing the same, just in reverse? I am at least trying my best to get out of "my" selfish being and ask a question for our entire planet. And what you want to do is kill that very question because you want to go to the grocery store and buy milk, right? Think, for once, what if this is actually happening like every climate scientist says. What if the oil cos actually wanted to squash all evidence? What if you are their agent? What do they have to lose if we start listening to the scientists - everything.

lopmotr 6y ago
You're missing my point. It is that you don't know what the consequences of climate change will be. Not even any kind of estimate at all. So how can you be sure it's worth the cost of preventing? Even scientists hardly have any idea. I'm not saying they're wrong, I'm saying they don't know. What if we really do get increased flooding, storms, etc. like every climate scientist says, and we cope just fine? I'm not trying to kill any question. I'm trying to ask a question! What will the consequences of climate change be? It's a pretty important one. If you can only speak in emotional language like "calamity" then you don't have any idea at all.
- brainless 6y ago
  Just check what the representatives from island nations have to say and I think you will have a clearer idea. It is easy to disregard evidence when it stares at you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change_on_island_nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change_on_i...
  - lopmotr 6y ago
    No. Island nations aren't big enough to be a major global problem.
- throwaway936482 6y ago
  The problem with this argument is that climate change presents an existential risk for our current global civilisation and ability to support the numbers of people currently living on earth. If climate change (along with the other types of environmental destruction we are currently reaping) is as bad as predicted (and scientists are actually fairly certain of the likely impacts. Read the IPCC reports and then remember that these are the outcome of a process designed to produce the most conservative estimates) then we face an enormous die off of the world's population as large swathes of the planet become essentially uninhabitable at current densities. The costs of mitigating climate change are, in comparison, tiny. A few percent of GDP if we don't replace current polluting industries with cleaner ones. Given this it makes sense to mitigate against climate change, even if it turns out that the predictions are overly pessimistic, because the risks are so high. It's similar to taking out fire insurance. Sure the chances of your house or business burning down are pretty low, but the impact on you if they do is so high that it makes sense to pay the relatively low cost.
  - Joeri 6y ago
    Where in the IPCC reports do you find an existential risk to humanity? I’ve read most of AR5 and I haven’t come across it. I’m worried about climate change, but activists like extinction rebellion are far from telling the truth, and the doomsaying is preventing action.