Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant

[NeoTrader]

Imbecile.

What's the worst case scenario if global warming is true? Environmental ruin. Hedge against the possibility.

What's the worst case scenario if Iran gets their hands on nuclear weapons against the U.S.A.? If potential societal ruin. Hedge against the possibility. (NO warmonger's, this doesn't mean destroy Iran, it means ease tension, specifically, do business).

Keep asking yourself worst case scenarios, if you cannot bear the worst case scenario, you must hedge against it.

Elect some sensible people that understand risk and ruin to get the job done. To do this, enact Skin-in-the-game laws. This will prevent empty-suit asshats in air conditioned office building in Washington to declare war 8,000 miles away without facing the consequences himself/herself.

This imbecile would rather sit back and do nothing about threats to survival...weak imbecile.

You advocate taking government measures(such as the measures directed at "global warming", which would cost billions/trillions of dollars) without actual proof of the veracity of the alleged problem, simply based on what people say the end MIGHT be and I'm the imbecil?
You must have missed the "plastic straw ban" in several states, to have an idea of the catastrophic results of your idiotic idea...

The biggest threat to survival of everyone in this planet is people like you, who have no capacity whatsoever to have the slightest idea of the consequences of putting childish and idiotic ideas such as yours and are precisely the people who elect imbecils such as AOC and the like...

And, for the ad hominems showing lack of ability to discuss like a civilized human being: On ignore.

 

[Amahrix]

You advocate taking government measures(such as the measures directed at "global warming", which would cost billions/trillions of dollars) without actual proof of the veracity of the alleged problem and I'm the imbecil?

The debate on whether global warming is true or untrue will go on for eternity. Lets all wait with NeoTrader until these empty-suits come to a conclusion...... NeoTrader is waiting for the environment to be decimated before believing that global warming is real, by then it's over. You're taking a bet that human evolution cannot afford, if it's true, and there are strong points that it is! You don't take the chance of ruin, stupid guy.

Thx strawman, did I ever tell you I endorse the plastic straw ban? I think it's naive and idiotic to think these are the solutions to a potentially deadly problem.

I for one know that you can only get out of this hole not thru changing the behavior of humans(by giving them paper straws against plastic lmao) but thru engineering your way out.

 

[Amahrix]

And, for the ad hominems showing lack of ability to discuss like a civilized human being: On ignore.

You're not a human being. You are an empty imbecile. Your fallacious logic is risking the future of humanity. Obviously, there are very solid points for global warming... and there are some good points to the contrary... and there is a possibility it is true, and IF true and comes to fruition, it is ruinous to humanity.

After realizing this, how do you sit sedentarily and do nothing about the possible chance of ruin. It is irrational behavior.

I am saying, to any problem, look at the worst case scenario, if it exhibits a possibility of ruin, you hedge it, IMMEDIATELY. Do you even trade, bro?

 

[Amahrix]

@NeoTrader

Few questions for you:

1) Do you believe global warming is true?

2) If no, do you believe that it could be 1% true?

3) If not, do you believe it could be 0.001% true?

4) If not, you reek of epistemic arrogance

5) If yes, then answer, do you believe paranoia is rational?

6) If not, you don’t know evolution/survival. Paranoia is survival mechanism.

7) Now ask yourself if the 0.001% chance that this is true, what is the worst case scenario?

8) Once you reflect and see that it is ruin of environment and part of humanity, if not all, do you want to go thru time running this risk?

9) if your human and you’re answer is no, will you take steps today to prevent the possibility for this ruinous event to occur, yes or no?

10) if no, are you a civilized human being, or an empty imbecile?

 

[DTB2]

3) If not, do you believe it could be 0.001% true?

And the solutions are 0.001% effective, so now what? Hedge it? At a ruinous cost?
That's your argument's great shortcoming.

 

[Amahrix]

And the solutions are 0.001% effective, so now what? Hedge it? At a ruinous cost?
That's your argument's great shortcoming.

Yea they are.

No, you don't hedge the failures of the solutions.

Why? Because the failure of the possible solutions increases the odds of success because you tinker/trial and error to see what works and what doesn't work, everytime a failure happens on the solution side, the chance of success increases because you learn from what did not work. Got it?

Govt needs to encourage entrepreneurialism in respect to this industry. The entrepreneurs will find the engineering way out. (through tinkering/trial and error/failures). The quicker they fail, the quicker we succeed. Cost to entry is high, partly becuz govt subsidies allow current monopolies to hold their position plus a million other factors.

Think for a second, guy.

 

[DTB2]

Me thinks the global warming zealots had just as much zeal at promoting the demise of nuclear energy. Got it?

They don't want solutions, think for a second, guy.

 

[Snarkhund]

Oversimplification, on both sides, is unhelpful.

Carbon Dioxide, *in a certain range of concentration* is not a pollutant. One look at Venus and you could argue that CO2 is a pollutant so far as life is concerned at high concentration.

 

[DTB2]

Wind and solar are the darlings.

Any significant progress will be due to an increase in nuclear power and the recapture/re-use of CO2

 

[Cuddles]

Listen.. you have to ask “what is the worst case scenario if this is plausibly true.”

If it’s ruin...(and it is), you take action immediately, even at the cost of industries because you don’t run the risk of ruin.

the hedge has to be high to risk ruining your economy; you don't hedge on a 1% chance (think of every other doomsday prophecy we've ignored, some even science based). At this time it appears the odds are high, so hedging is worth it.