41–49 of 49 posts
I'd want there to be a 0% chance of unintended consequences before taking this seriously. And even then when there is no other choice.
The contrast is illuminating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Second dumbest at most. The dumbest idea is blowing CO2 that was sequestered during millions of years into the atmosphere within a couple of decades.
Where does the plan to continue to do it for decades fit in?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How DARE they try to prevent the extinction of the human race!
dude stop pretending like global warming will cause our extinction or provide a source to back it up. none of the models i've read supported any conclusion like that
I'd want there to be a 0% chance of unintended consequences before taking this seriously. And even then when there is no other choice.
0% chance of side effects is unrealistic. A better way to think of it is like the hippocratic oath that doctors adhere to: to do no harm. Yet just a few weeks ago a doctor cut some holes in me. That’s clearly harmful, yet in the balance I was quite glad he did so sad that way he could repair my arm. So a trade off analysis is required. Fortunately there’s a emerging governance, e.g. from the Climate Restoration Safet…
An operation on your body has consequences for you alone. You can consent to it. We won't find consensus on altering entire climates.
I'd want there to be a 0% chance of unintended consequences before taking this seriously. And even then when there is no other choice.
As opposed to the 100% chance of massive, civilization threatening consequences if we do nothing? The contrast is illuminating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
dude stop pretending like global warming will cause our extinction or provide a source to back it up. none of the models i've read supported any conclusion like that
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03595-0 you can live in your own wishful thinking fairy tale where models make "conclusions" but over here in reality we have to live knowing that extinction is a possibility because veering away from equilibrium means you cannot predict in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03595-0 you can live in your own wishful thinking fairy tale where models make "conclusions" but over here in reality we have to live knowing that extinction is a possibility because veering away from equilibrium means you cannot predict in the first place.
your article doesn't say anything about human extinction. it talks about a "tipping point" in climate change but has no evidence to suggest human extinction. provide a source or stop claiming it will make us extinct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
your article doesn't say anything about human extinction. it talks about a "tipping point" in climate change but has no evidence to suggest human extinction. provide a source or stop claiming it will make us extinct.
Why are humans the only creatures that matter? Are we the only ones capable of suffering? If it wipes out a quarter of all species isn't that a catastrophe, even without considering our dependence on them? Myopia like yours is how humanity got here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are humans the only creatures that matter? Are we the only ones capable of suffering? If it wipes out a quarter of all species isn't that a catastrophe, even without considering our dependence on them? Myopia like yours is how humanity got here.
i didnt say that. i was responding to a hyperbolic and utterly baseless claim that climate change wpuld cause humanity to be extinct. it's an absolutely cnn-tier nonsense statement.
If we're forced to live a completely different lifestyle it may be tantamount to the extinction of modern humanity.