On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 6:31:46 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 5:38 PM, LizR <liz...@gmail.com <javascript:>>wrote: > > > Yeah I like thorium too. I realise it isn't the universal panacea but >> seems like a good bet if handled carefully. >> > > It's a bit off topic but all my life I've heard people say X is NOT a > panacea but never once heard anyone say Y IS a panacea. For something to be > meaningful contrasts is needed, If absolutely nothing in the observable > universe is a panacea the word would be as useless as if everything was a > panacea. > > > if oil production is still increasing, >> > > It is. > > >> > that isn't good news for the environment. >> > > If increasing oil production keeps 7 billion large mammals (who happen to > be my favorite animal) happier healthier and more prosperous than if oil > were not increasing I would say increasing oil production is very good news > for the human race. Does that mean that some other animals in the > environment that aren't on my top ten list will suffer as a result? > Probably. > > > And it *will *peak at some point, >> > > Yes but in general making plans to solve problems that won't show up for > more than 15 years usually turns into a farce, it does so for 2 reasons: > > 1) The problem you foresee has little relation to the problem you > eventually end up facing. > 2) Do to advancing technology the solution you propose has rapidly become > ridiculous. > Hi john, this looks like one instance of a more general theme supporting your whole position or a large chunk of it. So it seems reasonable to look for the sense your theme is consistent beyond climate science. So for my first stab at shedding some light on this, how about we look at the hypothetical of an object spotted out beyond pluto somewhere, that is too remote to do more than attach some best-approximation - some of which little better than vague - to some key properties. We know it's big, like...between 1/2 a mile and 10 miles. We know it's fast, between, like, 20000mph and 70000mph. We know its trajectory such that, there's a 99% chance it will cross Earth's path, but the best our best models can currently say is there is a 15% probability of Earth being at the same position along its path, when the object happens to cross it. So, all of that basically deriving from models, all of them being the best we currently can say, based on our best efforts in the scientific tradition, including - intrinsically so - best efforts to minimize typical subjective, value-based corruptions typical across basically the entirety of non-science. So, trying to order all your reasons why you'd treat this situation just the same, with just he same principle - or that this would be completely different and of course it would be a no brainer to go with whatever our best guess is, from science, because....in this case a 15% chance of a catastrophe, even if it's not even 15%...like even 1% dude...it's a real threat the way that other stuff just isn't....a 1/2 mile rock hitting the earth at 20000 miles with a 1% chance, is worse than 6C average rise. For Sure. Enough, to hold diamametrically opposite views. Is that your view, or would you do the same? Or do you just need more information John? Like is it just impossible to provide an answer? Like, in the same way you've judged the level of expertise in climate science you needed for allthe judgements you've made. That standard? As high as that?
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
