John Berry <[email protected]> wrote:
> If 1 is the case and we do nothing about it, the worst case scenario is > likely the end of most all (notable) life on earth. > I do not think the worst case scenarios are that bad. They are awful, but not quite that bad. > If 2 is the case (what you seem to think) and we do something about a > non-existent problem then what is the worst case scenario? > > The worst case scenario for the latter truly insignificant, compared to > the worst case for the former. > The worst case scenario is: 1. We develop a bunch of useful technology that we will need anyway as fossil fuels run out. 2. We reduce pollution, smoke and particles, which kill roughly 20,000 people per year in the U.S. and many more in China. 3. We make a huge profit. There is no down side to it. The only demerit might be that we transition a little sooner than necessary as oil runs out. I don't see that happening because we are going slowly as it is. I would prefer to see proactive moves away from oil now, rather than waiting until high prices force a rapid change. Panic does not motivate good engineering. What you want is a profit motive. Before we should call an ambulance because you seem to be having a heart > attack we should make sure by letting you die and rot a little before we > can speculate if we should ring an ambulance. > > After all it could be a panic attack, you could be joking, you may recover > better on your own. > We clearly won't get a room full of scientist to agree that you are in > fact having a heart attack until the autopsy is complete. > Good analogy! By the way, when quoting these messages, please truncate older portions that extend below. - Jed
