3 ms·
Fair point. And the thing about climate science is that while you may or may not disagree about global warming, the strategies we would employ to fight global w
by martian 17y ago
Fair point. And the thing about climate science is that while you may or may not disagree about global warming, the strategies we would employ to fight global warming are the same strategies we should be employing regardless.
Take the issue of renewable energy. It might prevent global warming, but it also promotes energy independence, reduces pollution generally, allays fears about peak-oil or peak-coal.
- jacoblyles 17y agoThere's an optimum amount to fund such research if you are viewing the issue dispassionately, and an amount that you will fund it if everybody is afraid the world will end next year if we don't. To me, it is obvious that the first amount is better. This is one of the few issues where hackers defend intellectual dishonesty as something that makes us do "what we should be doing anyway". I'm sorry, I don't buy it.
- InclinedPlane 17y agoPeak-coal? Really? The last I checked there was enough coal in the ground to last several hundred years more, at least. As for oil, there's a pretty damned good chance that our extraction technology will improve (as has been the trend) and our ability to use new sources, like shale, will improve as well (as has been the trend). Peddling the "fossil fuels will run out, we should find alternatives" line is a dangerous path. It risks a lot of very stubborn people saying "really? well, let's just find out, to the bitter end" and calling that bluff. And there is a very real possibility (even if you are skeptical and put that possibility at, say, 10% or less) that the world ends up using every last drop of coal, and far more oil than we ever thought possible, and ultimately burning 10x, 20x or more fossil fuels than have been burned so far.