(01-17-2020, 01:43 AM)flyboy77 date Wrote:You should listen to Freeman Dyson, one of the great thinkers of the modern era.Don't be scared Flyboy77, change is OK even if it's change from the old ways of burning coal and oil or driving combustion engine cars, Hyundai will still sponsor us!
If your heart surgeon states you need an operation to survive you wouldn't ask a quantum physicist like Dyson Freeman for his second opinion, just like we can't have climate scientists telling us about the safety or validity of a Freeman Dyson quantum physics experiments at CERN! Even if Dyson believes Human Induced Climate change exists, and argues that global warming doesn't or can't be derived from the data, or is exaggerated, it's just an opinion or another interested but non-specialist person. Even Dyson used specialist mathematicians and experimentalists to assist him with aspects of his work, just like scientists use engineers and engineers use tradespeople!
As you well know the intricate details are way beyond the scope of this forum, when you offer trivial bits of cherry-picked data you do a disservice to forum members in offering them a mostly vitriolic response worthless in anything other than exposing an ignorance or fear whether it be willful or naive. When I debate this topic I debate the issue, not you or any other individual. It's obvious "economic growth" is an unsustainable concept which ultimately leads to economic collapse and the global environment being trashed. Several major municipalities around the globe have realized this and are dropping GDP as a measure of performance as a result.
I've spent enough time today wasted describing to how the science and scientists do not make broad assumptions or conclusions, and your retort reverts to broad labels and generalised conclusions which clearly fall outside a rational realm. When most rational scientists discuss global warming or human induced global warming they are very careful not to discuss the course of action in terms of blame.
Scientists discuss global warming in terms of risk not absolutes, and there is no reasonable or sensible argument that can be made to not act in the mitigation of that risk. If there is a chance we contribute to that risk, then we should do whatever we reasonably can to reduce our contribution, it's that simple!
It's truly ironic that supporters of the capitalistic system, those embedded in never ending growth, arguing against the concept of being thrifty or frugal with resources! They live in empires where profit is partially defined by reduction of waste and improved efficiency, they even publish Kanban charts, provide 6-sigma training and publish triple baseline financial reports. Yet they rally against sensible global changes that will potentially minimise or mitigate human induced climate change while improving overall efficiency. Do you see the irony?
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"