thranx said:
Oh so now its I'm not capable. I must listen to the rulers. If they dont want us to focus on the one aspect on climate change they shouldn trey and make political policy on it. Not my fault I care more for the economy of the US than I do "climate change". If they were smart they wouldn't try and bundle it all together. Yes the oceans absorb the co2, something they didnt factor in in the begining, yes there are massive under water currents and weather systems that may or may moay not be affected by "climate change" that they didnt know exsited when they first started. Many aspects to it, in fact so many perhaps we just dont know enough yet. Which is of course my view, we do not know enough yet, and certainly not enough to alter apour entire economy. Because we do know what that will bring, which is higher energy costs, which means higher costs for all goods, which means more people will go without and possibly suffer. But hey, lets take care of that co2. I would much rather envirmentalists try and clean our water, clean our air of actual pollution and smog, make fossil fuels even more effieceint as gains there will help the entire world at once. But instead science is backing a view they can't prove. And you can claim I'm too stupid all you want, the fact is more people dont believe than do beleieve and the number of non believers is only going up as the science is not there to back up the claims. With Trump in the whitehouse and funding being yanked from these guys wew ill see how the scientific consensus changes.
|
Yes you are not capable of understanding and interpreting the available data correctly, neither am I and I had many courses directly related to climatology in my curriculum.
That doesn't mean you are too stupid and I never said/implied you were (analphabets in almost all cases can learn the alphabet), but I'm aware that people with far more intellect than I have studied these matters intensively and looked at this in a very objective manner before comming to their conclusions.
Obviously if you came across something in your field of expertise that bears an unreasonably high risk to alter life on the planet for the worse you'd try to push that to the forefront of politics in order to make a change, especially if you tried to do it the conventional way for decades, but everybody is just twiddling their thumbs, as it's so much more comfortable to do nothing and hope for the best since doing business as usual is the best for the richest people and richest companies.
Yes, at this point it's just "a risk", meaning there is a small chance nothing (bad) happens even if we go to 500 or 600ppm CO2 or to 2-3 °C temperature anomaly, but in this case it's in my opinion far more prudent and sane to be "conservative", to try and conserve the state of the earth we have right now for as long as we can!
To do so we have to alter our energy resources and I don't doubt this could have a mild effect on our daily lifes for up to 2 decades, but I also expect the process to be far less intrusive than the opposition paints it. We have come a very long way in making renewable energy cheaper and the only big hurdle left is energy storage as many renewables don't have constant output. With enough "political will " (i.e. money and research focus) we should easily find good solutions to that.
In the longer run renewables will make energy costs much much lower for the general public, as alsmost everyone will be able to generate their own power (obviously electricity providers won't be happy with that - just like camera film makers weren't happy about digital cameras) and probably just have to pay for companies to manage the decentralised power system.
btw pls don't write wall texts