If A is right, but we follow B, There will be some effect. Well, for argument's sake lets accept it to be bad. It will be a range, from mildly bad to fucked.
PS: No one knows how bad it will be. Theres still a range of possibilities
If A is right and we follow A, We might still be fucked. Maybe not as bad as the worst case above, but still resource constrained = less progress = bad. Also maybe its too late, and we cant avoid above possibility.
If A is right, there are other options than following either. For instance, mitigation is one of those options. Might mitigation be a better direction ?
If A is wrong and we follow B, we're ok. Yup.
If A is wrong and we follow A, we're ok. Not quite. Those who didnt follow A will have a huge economical advantage at this point.
So I *do* find that believable. And from a practical point of view I'd have thought that caution was the appropriate approach when playing with things like, you know, the global ecology.
What about the appropriate approach when playing with things like, you know, the global economy, y'know, trillions of $ ?
Slashdot Mirror
It is unknown how much the temperature will increase. The models (are they even good ?) all disagree.
How bad (or good) will the change be, no one knows. There are just predictions of doom and gloom.
Then you expect everyone to go all out to prevent something that may or may not have good or bad effects ?
Zip, thats what
If A is right, but we follow B, There will be some effect. Well, for argument's sake lets accept it to be bad. It will be a range, from mildly bad to fucked.
PS: No one knows how bad it will be. Theres still a range of possibilities
If A is right and we follow A, We might still be fucked. Maybe not as bad as the worst case above, but still resource constrained = less progress = bad. Also maybe its too late, and we cant avoid above possibility.
If A is right, there are other options than following either. For instance, mitigation is one of those options. Might mitigation be a better direction ?
If A is wrong and we follow B, we're ok. Yup.
If A is wrong and we follow A, we're ok. Not quite. Those who didnt follow A will have a huge economical advantage at this point.
Now, is the decision still clear ?Look up archimedes principle or buoyancy. Im surprised you didnt learn this in school. :)
The water level stays the same as the ice melts.
This is because the ice displaces as much water as it weighs = the amount of water it turns into when it melts
Life goes on.
If China becomes the next super power ...
They will do as they please. They're hardly likely to be as nice as the US is.
You're just as dead shot by a 12-yr old kid "playing with a rifle" as anyone else.
Everything i've read seems to indicate that they took people prisoner, and held them as slaves until ransomed.
And why shouldn't the US attack countries which support pirates, who kill crew and take slaves for ransom ?
"Millions for defense, but not a cent for tribute!"
Think Klingon equivalent of a ceremonial japanese samurai sword ?
Thank you for that clear statement.
I've yet to find anything discussing the costs of prevention vs. mitigation of warming. I guess the risk assessment hasnt been carried out yet.
What about the appropriate approach when playing with things like, you know, the global economy, y'know, trillions of $ ?
I honestly dont know
It's one thing to accept MS ads, or buy stuff from them. Quite something else to be in bed with the 800 lb gorilla. Now I'm mixing metaphors again ....
Talk about a deal with the devil ...
"Diplomacy Merit Badge" Or how to lie through your teeth and bluff under extreme duress
that was meant to be
You didnt . Do you plan on staying in Old Fart mode ?
We can see it doesnt work here, because its close to home ...
Maybe it never worked ?
Get a grip.
Exxxtreme Dupes
Great idea, though, I'll remember it next time ... :)
Your dog doesn't ?
Your dog talks to you ?