11 ms·
It broke many times throughout its history. There is just zero evidence that we cannot adjust, mitigate, prevent etc. - otherwise we might as well do nothing be
by RandomLensman 3y ago
It broke many times throughout its history. There is just zero evidence that we cannot adjust, mitigate, prevent etc. - otherwise we might as well do nothing because we are all doomed anyway.
- forgetfreeman 3y agoYou say zero evidence. Would you like to review a graph of global CO2 emissions over the last 30 years?
- RandomLensman 3y agoIrrelevant to what humans can do. If anything speaks to human geoengineering ability.
- forgetfreeman 3y agoBullshit. It clearly shows humans unwillingness to engage with the problem, with no evidence as of yet to support the notion that this will change in any meaningful way at any arbitrary future date. It certainly does not demonstrate any latent ability to curb the problems created by elevated greenhouse gas emissions.
- RandomLensman 3y agoThat is just unhappiness with how and when it's tackled not that it won't be tackled.
- forgetfreeman 3y agoI mean if you want to proceed from a faith-based position that's a personal choice. Personally I'll start believing in bigfoot 2 seconds after I see one.
- RandomLensman 3y agoI have honestly no idea how that relates to my post. There are enormous amounts of money flowing into net zero, for example. There are people working on fusion, there is more thought given to geoengineering - to name just a couple of things.
- jonathankoren 3y agoWe’ve been 20 years away from fusion for 80 years now. Maybe someday, sure. But saying fusion is going to save us is foolish. We can’t wait that long
- RandomLensman 3y agoIt will be part of the saving. Investment in fusion was and is still tiny compared to fossil fuel or fission.
- nequo 3y agoI read your comment as meaning that humans are not responsible for climate change. But now I think you meant that humans may be responsible but they can fix it. Well, all I can say is that I hope that they can.