Comment 130037

By MichaelNabert (registered) | Posted June 28, 2019 at 13:19:40 in reply to Comment 130036

My point was that any even moderately intelligent species responds to evidence of self imposed risks to their ecosystem. So when literally every professional scientific organization on the planet agrees about climate change, and the finding that we are causing it is at the five sigma gold standard level for scientific evidence with less than a one in a million margin for error with no alternative hypothesis to explain what is happening having been brought forward by decades of well funded looking for one that can stand up to even the most cursory scientific scrutiny, and the insurance industry calls it the mother of all risks (while waving around the receipts, so they should know), and the Pentagon and other military intelligence tells us that it's a threat multiplier already worsening an immense range of threats to national security, and public health agencies document the negative impacts it is already having on human health, and economists tell us it represents the greatest market failure in human history, and real world events keep proving the projections of the science correct, although woefully optimistic, in daily news events where everyone can see it happening, you'd like us to collectively gamble the well being of every living thing on the planet betting that all of dozens of kinds of experts everywhere on the face of the Earth are all wrong all at the same time all in their primary fields of expertise and that the evidence of our own eyes proving them right is a complete coincidence by doing the opposite of what the relevant professionals tells us we should solely on the strength of your ability to be dismissive of a stranger in public? Good luck with that.

Comment edited by MichaelNabert on 2019-06-28 13:20:40

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools