kowenicki said:
I prefer the more scientific approach than just throwing billions around at half baked proposals, based on dodgy science, make no mistake some people are getting very very wealthy off the back of this climate agenda. The last one was one of the funniest... a simple mis-reading of when glaciers might vanish at "current rates" (in itself bad science) which was reported as 2035... it of course actually read 2305.
|
So let's approach this scientifically. Can you promise me with 99% guarantee that our planet will not get fucked due to something we won't do? There is always a risk/consequence thing. With god, as you mentioned, the risk is pretty low. With the swine flu a bit larger. With the climate it's pretty much one of the biggest risks. So yes, scientifically predict me that our involvements, as minimal as they are, won't end the only place we can live on, and then we can talk about not treading lightly. Or find another easily accessible habitable planet where many of us can live on, the risk is greatly reduced if we can all move to another planet.
Currently you can't do either of those two, so no, we SHOULD tread lightly and take precautions. We shouldn't stop until the risk is much much smaller than now. Doing anything is just outright idiocy.
Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."
HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374
Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420
gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835








