4 ms·

Only if you're a sociopath. But I also don't buy the framing that oil companies are murdering people when they're providing the energy society needs. Fossil fue

Only if you're a sociopath. But I also don't buy the framing that oil companies are murdering people when they're providing the energy society needs. Fossil fuels have largely powered the modern world. That doesn't excuse covering up the science and the need to transition either. But there's tradeoffs and nuance to all this. Was solar and battery technology good enough in the 70s and 80s to start transitioning then? Would the public have accepted a nuclear transition? For that matter, are there climate models predicting deaths on the order of 1 billion? Do they even make such predictions?

triceratops 2y ago
> That doesn't excuse covering up the science and the need to transition either That's what we're calling sociopathic behavior. Not drilling oil and gas.
- goatlover 2y ago
  I'd call the socipathic behavior trading a billion lives for a trillion dollars, but that's just something the parent came up with. What's the actual tradeoff, what sort of transition could have happened by now, to what extent was the rest of the scientific community aware of greenhouse gases, would a lot more nuclear power plants being built have been seen as better by the public?
  - triceratops 2y ago
    > trading a billion lives for a trillion dollars Which they did by covering up the problem. > what sort of transition could have happened by now More renewables and batteries, more electric vehicles, more public transit, high-speed rail, cheaper and safer nuclear.
    - goatlover 2y ago
      They did? I missed the part where a billion people are dead. Last I checked, the population is still going up. I asked if there were any climate models making such a prediction.
      - triceratops 2y ago
        > At least 3.3 billion people, about 40% of the world population, now fall into the most serious category of "highly vulnerable", with the worst effects in the developing world.[35] If emissions continue on their current path, Africa will lose 30% of its maize cultivation territory and 50% of its land cultivated for beans. One billion people face flooding due to sea level rise.[34] Climate change, together with other factors, also increases the risk of infectious diseases outbreaks like the COVID-19 pandemic. The report also cites evidence that China will pay the highest financial cost if the temperature continue to rise. The impacts will include food insecurity, water scarcity, flooding, especially in coastal areas where most of the population lives due to higher than average sea level rise, and more powerful cyclones. At some point part of the country may face wet-bulb temperatures higher than humans and other mammals can tolerate more than six hours Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Sixth_Assessment_Report#Important_findings_of_WG_2_report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Sixth_Assessment_Report#I... Plus however many lives could be lost due to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_migration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_migration

triceratops 2y ago

> That doesn't excuse covering up the science and the need to transition either That's what we're calling sociopathic behavior. Not drilling oil and gas.

goatlover 2y ago
I'd call the socipathic behavior trading a billion lives for a trillion dollars, but that's just something the parent came up with. What's the actual tradeoff, what sort of transition could have happened by now, to what extent was the rest of the scientific community aware of greenhouse gases, would a lot more nuclear power plants being built have been seen as better by the public?
- triceratops 2y ago
  > trading a billion lives for a trillion dollars Which they did by covering up the problem. > what sort of transition could have happened by now More renewables and batteries, more electric vehicles, more public transit, high-speed rail, cheaper and safer nuclear.
  - goatlover 2y ago
    They did? I missed the part where a billion people are dead. Last I checked, the population is still going up. I asked if there were any climate models making such a prediction.
    - triceratops 2y ago
      > At least 3.3 billion people, about 40% of the world population, now fall into the most serious category of "highly vulnerable", with the worst effects in the developing world.[35] If emissions continue on their current path, Africa will lose 30% of its maize cultivation territory and 50% of its land cultivated for beans. One billion people face flooding due to sea level rise.[34] Climate change, together with other factors, also increases the risk of infectious diseases outbreaks like the COVID-19 pandemic. The report also cites evidence that China will pay the highest financial cost if the temperature continue to rise. The impacts will include food insecurity, water scarcity, flooding, especially in coastal areas where most of the population lives due to higher than average sea level rise, and more powerful cyclones. At some point part of the country may face wet-bulb temperatures higher than humans and other mammals can tolerate more than six hours Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Sixth_Assessment_Report#Important_findings_of_WG_2_report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Sixth_Assessment_Report#I... Plus however many lives could be lost due to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_migration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_migration