- Thread starter
- Banned
- #141
If you took your blood pressure with one of those digital blood pressure monitors, would the readout it gave be a "theory?" The graphs I shoud came from actual measurements. Also, everybody want's more. Scientists are no different. But reality dissuades them. What is going on isn't a socialist agenda. It is a survival agenda.
Correlation does not equal causation is a scientific axiom that you should aquaint yourself with.
I have a couple sayings for you to aquaint yourself with. "Where there's smoke, there's fire." Also, "It's better to be safe than sorry." I have something else for you to consider. But it will probably be a little like asking a heroin addict to consider quitting. What "if" you are right. And that's a very very big "IF." What is the worst that can happen by doing something about HCGW. We start living more sustainably with the planet. And in doing so, for instance, stop making creatures go extinct.
But what "if" I am right. And that "if" is nonexistant. Because I am right. What is the worst than can happen by doing nothing about HCGW. Just most of the life on earth going extinct. Which I heard one college professor who had been studying the problem for the last 15 years, could happen in about 20 years. You tell me what is worse. Living sustainably, or destroying most of the life on earth.
Neither of those are scientific silly boy. i thought you were interested in science and the scientific method. You see dear child, the scientific method was developed over centuries to educate religious fanatics such as yourself so that you would stop sacrificing virgins to the volcano God. Clearly you are still locked in the 600's.
The point is that it is better to be safe than sorry. And in your case, the outcome of being wrong are far far more dire than the outcome of your being right. These statements are philosophical facts. There is nothing cultish about them either. So don't go trying to make mountains out of mole hills by saying that the science isn't good enough. Besides, for most scientists, the science is good enough.
The point is that it is better to be safe than sorry.
How much money should we waste? How much damage should we do to our economy?
What is the perfect global temperature, so we know when we can stop harming ourselves, to be safe?
We need some specifics.
And in your case, the outcome of being wrong are far far more dire than the outcome of your being right.
Based on what evidence? Life has thrived more during warm periods than during ice ages.
How much money should we "waste?" You sound like you think money has any real value. We are already over 18 trillion dollars in debt and have around 65 trillion dollars worth of unfunded obligations. The value of your money is buoyed by happy thoughts and fairy dust.
As to our diseased capitalistic consumerism economy, it needs to go away. We need an economy based on sustainability. Not endless growth. Next, the best we can do is return CO2 emissions back to what they were at the beginning of the industrial revolution. And start heading the population levels of non-whites back to what they were back then too. Next, why are you bringing ice ages into the discussion. The problems we are having aren't due to global cooling.