Mustang washed away in flood

[dpAtlanta]

The post was NOT in reply to your post, just an observation on society as a whole.

Sponsored

 

[wynand32]

The post was NOT in reply to your post, just an observation on society as a whole.

Sure, I hear you and agree. I didn't take it personally, was just making an observation.

 

[Balr14]

I am a pragmatist. The downside of being wrong about climate change being real is a lot worse than if it isn't real. I guess you can that "hedging a bet".

 

[wynand32]

I am a pragmatist. The downside of being wrong about climate change being real is a lot worse than if it isn't real. I guess you can that "hedging a bet".

I couldn't disagree more. The downside of being wrong about (catastrophic, anthropogenic) climate change being real, meaning the implementation of policies that will depress the global economy, put millions out of work, threaten our access to reliable, affordable energy, and generally cause widescale economic dislocations, is very real. And ironically, maybe, those with the least resources will suffer the worst.

I clarified your point a bit because, of course, "climate change" is real. The climate has always changed, and always will. It's entirely possible that we are experiencing a NATURAL period of warmer climate, with a variety of consequences. Some of those consequences could be negative, e.g., more weather extremes, more violent storms, erosion of coastlines, etc. Some could be positive, e.g., more efficient agriculture and, you know, cold is much worse than warm when it comes to climate and the impact on life.

If that's the case, then we'll need affordable, reliable energy and everything it brings us even more. Mankind has survived by adjusting to the environment, and we won't be able to do that if industry and technology are destroyed. The same would be true, even more so, if, as some suspect, we're actually heading toward a colder climate.

It's a huge mistake to think there's no cost to policies aimed at dramatically curtailing the production of CO2 in order to reduce global warming. There's a massive cost, and we've just begun to feel it. If everyone lived up to their promises, even by current policies, look out for a global depression. If they live up to proposed policies, well, I hate to think about it.

I don't believe the most dire predictions, regardless of what's actually going on. Every prediction over the last 50 years has been falsified. I don't know of a single catastrophic event that's actually occurred as predicted. So I don't believe the "science" (i.e., dogma), in scare quotes because it's not at all scientific. I think that IF mankind is CONTRIBUTING to global warming, it's by a minimal degree and, as long as we have the resources to adopt, the outcome won't be nearly the catastrophe that it's predicted to be.

And most important is continued access to affordable, reliable energy, the lifeblood of modern industrial-technological society. That's precisely what the hysterics want to take away from us, right when we might need it the most.

 

[Genxer]

The hottest Summer I’ve lived through here in Texas was in 1980, over 40 years ago. The worst ice storm I’ve ever seen was around the same time. The worst drought to date in Texas started in 1949. The worst hurricane to hit the Texas coast was in 1900. Extreme weather happens. This is only the recorded weather events. Before these things were tracked accurately we don’t know for sure what happened historically.

 

[ShadesOfBloo]

The amount of radiation released at 3 Mile Island was minimal and had no health or environmental impact...

According to the people who fucked up.
Including government agencies whose fuck-up was inadequate oversight of the profit-driven corporation.

 

[Balr14]

I couldn't disagree more. The downside of being wrong about (catastrophic, anthropogenic) climate change being real, meaning the implementation of policies that will depress the global economy, put millions out of work, threaten our access to reliable, affordable energy, and generally cause widescale economic dislocations, is very real. And ironically, maybe, those with the least resources will suffer the worst.

I clarified your point a bit because, of course, "climate change" is real. The climate has always changed, and always will. It's entirely possible that we are experiencing a NATURAL period of warmer climate, with a variety of consequences. Some of those consequences could be negative, e.g., more weather extremes, more violent storms, erosion of coastlines, etc. Some could be positive, e.g., more efficient agriculture and, you know, cold is much worse than warm when it comes to climate and the impact on life.

If that's the case, then we'll need affordable, reliable energy and everything it brings us even more. Mankind has survived by adjusting to the environment, and we won't be able to do that if industry and technology are destroyed. The same would be true, even more so, if, as some suspect, we're actually heading toward a colder climate.

It's a huge mistake to think there's no cost to policies aimed at dramatically curtailing the production of CO2 in order to reduce global warming. There's a massive cost, and we've just begun to feel it. If everyone lived up to their promises, even by current policies, look out for a global depression. If they live up to proposed policies, well, I hate to think about it.

I don't believe the most dire predictions, regardless of what's actually going on. Every prediction over the last 50 years has been falsified. I don't know of a single catastrophic event that's actually occurred as predicted. So I don't believe the "science" (i.e., dogma), in scare quotes because it's not at all scientific. I think that IF mankind is CONTRIBUTING to global warming, it's by a minimal degree and, as long as we have the resources to adopt, the outcome won't be nearly the catastrophe that it's predicted to be.

And most important is continued access to affordable, reliable energy, the lifeblood of modern industrial-technological society. That's precisely what the hysterics want to take away from us, right when we might need it the most.

Oil is not affordable and reliable. Too many geopolitical issues. Other technologies will replace it. Concern about global warming is making it progress faster, but it was coming anyway.

 

[shogun32]

The Fukushima meltdown was because of a natural disaster and was much less of a disaster.

it was COMPLETELY avoidable. Tepco just didn't want to bother to build the site properly.

 

[resto-sauce]

look from bright side, God gave the opportunity he is looking for to tear down the engine and rebuild it to make it 2K HP.

 

[EFI]

I am a pragmatist. The downside of being wrong about climate change being real is a lot worse than if it isn't real. I guess you can that "hedging a bet".

Really? What do you think is going to be worse and lead to more deaths.

Going back to living like it's the 13th century, or a few extra storms here and there?

I'll hedge my own bet...I'll take my chances with hotter weather than trying to survive life in the dark ages.

 

[wynand32]

Really? What do you think is going to be worse and lead to more deaths.

Going back to living like it's the 13th century, or a few extra storms here and there?

I'll hedge my own bet...I'll take my chances with hotter weather than trying to survive life in the dark ages.

With the policies the hysterics want to pursue, it could be worse than the 13th century. Ours is a civilization that requires lots of energy, and if the power grid falls apart, then we'd be unable to survive. It's not like we're an agrarian society used to burning candles for light.

 

[EFI]

It's not like we're an agrarian society used to burning candles for light.

But even that creates harmful CO2, so no burning of anything. No candles, no cooking, no heating. You just eat bugs and plants and go to sleep when it gets dark bundled up in your cold and damp stone house.

 

[Balr14]

Really? What do you think is going to be worse and lead to more deaths.

Going back to living like it's the 13th century, or a few extra storms here and there?

I'll hedge my own bet...I'll take my chances with hotter weather than trying to survive life in the dark ages.

We are talking about investing more in technology that reduces our dependency on fossil fuels. The dark ages! Such nonsense!

 

[EFI]

We are talking about investing more in technology that reduces our dependency on fossil fuels.

Mining cobalt with diesel machines and burning coal to power your home & car is hardly reducing our dependency on fossil fuels.

 

[stannypack]

don't worry guys, we'll all be gone by the time earth gets really fucked

Sponsored