|
Yiggy posted:How the hell do we get past that sort of apathy? And rationally, if you're one of those people... why should you suffer if we're going to hell in a handbasket, and you won't experience any of the heat? How do you get the guy on his last week of work do his share? He's leaving and he knows it, the company be damned. Religion can work against it as Jesus will be here any day now. So in conclusion, I don't know.
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2011 05:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 16:41 |
|
|
Strudel Man posted:It's not "I don't like the margin of error." It's "the margin of error makes it clear that any predictions are extremely imprecise." Is the problem that we cannot tell precisely the future or that the science does not extend it's claims further than it can to remain honest? Even on the low end of severity and high probability data that we have gathered in the last few decades (measurement of methane release/dying phytoplankton/ocean levels rising), we should be doing things right now to fix them. I applaud the reserved predictions and honest probabilities. The margin of error also leaves room for things to be WORSE.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2011 21:58
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:Seriously, it was raining a week or two ago in Minnesota, in the middle of December. For the past week it has been hovering around freezing with absolutely no snow on the ground. If there were still leaves on the trees it would look like early fall. Likewise for Southern Alberta, Canada. \/ Greetings from The Hat. Cromulent_Chill fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Dec 23, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2011 22:21
|
|
|
Yiggy posted:In the US we're sitting on tons and tons of natural gas and coal which haven't been fully extracted and which will allow us to keep driving a fossil fuel economy long after we've run past every tipping point in the environment. We may be passed peak oil and the crunch predicted by the US Joint Forces command may be emminent, but if things really get difficult in terms of fueling our vehicles with oil and gasoline we can liquify coal just like Germany did in WWII when they were short on oil. We can feasibly do that for a long time to power vehicles while using natural gas to power plants. Its going to take political will to not do that once oil prices really start to hurt. The sooner we move into nuclear the less likely we are to do that, but we're not doing anything right now to realistically address the inertia built into our oil based economy and we're not building nuclear plants on the scale which might begin to blunt said inertia. Is nuclear that tainted in the USA that liquid coal is seen as a better alternative than electric vehicles charged with nuclear energy?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2012 04:40
|
|
|
the kawaiiest posted:Yes, unfortunately. Oh, well thats kinda hosed.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2012 04:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 16:41 |
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:No, but oddly enough, the ones preaching for the most transformative solutions (for the rest of us) also happen to have ridiculous carbon footprints (for themselves). I'd say 'makes you think' but it's about as surprising as the plot to animal farm at this point. I'm sure there are frugal scientists pushing solutions. Our society pays attention to rich people though. I'd like that to be different as well. e: too slow 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2015 15:02
|
|