Climate Change: What's your take?

[sc94597]

GribbleGrunger said:

SamuelRSmith said:

 

The issue with these points is that it assumes that fighting global warming is costless. You present it as if fighting climate change and being wrong will be without cost.

The truth is that in order to switch to green energy/manufacturing, billions will suffer reduced standards of living, and millions will die. That is the reality of these proposals.

That's a fair point but I don't think it's one we can 'afford' to take into consideration. I'm coming from an objective perspective but I believe global warming is real so I can't escape the idea it could be persuading me subconsciously to view it in a particular way. It boils down to one simple fact: If we are right and nothing is done then Earth dies and human kind ends. If we are wrong then human kind continues but with less wealth and millions of people dead. When taking your point and my point into consideration it essentially boils down to 'kulling' vesus 'killing'. Given a choice between those two things I would still go with scenario one.

 

It isn't the false dichotomy you created. The likely result, even if we didn't use government action to affect change before it would occur naturally via markets, is likely much shorter than the total or great destruction of the Earth and humans (which from what I can tell is much less likely than development in undeveloped countries being slowed greatly by fossil fuel  reduction initiatives.)