Technology, Science and the Environment.

[SpacedX]

6 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

If the hole in the ozone layer was caused by CFC gasses, why was it in one place? 

Because the Earth's atmosphere is a fluid -  continuously in flux and motion and subject to circulation and redistribution due to wind cell patters and synoptic systems. As a result, ozone-depleting gases get mixed throughout the atmosphere, including Antarctica, regardless of where they are emitted. The unique meteorological conditions in Antarctica cause these gases to be more effective there in depleting ozone compared to other regions of the planet. 

 

Human emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons (bromine-containing gases) originated mainly in the Northern Hemisphere. About 90% have been released in the latitudes corresponding to Europe, Russia, Japan, and North America. Gases such as CFCs and halons, which are largely low in reactivity and insoluble in water, are mixed within the space of a couple of years throughout the lower atmosphere. The CFCs and halons in this well-mixed air ascend from the lower regions of the atmosphere into the stratosphere mainly in the tropical latitudes due to heating. Winds then move this air poleward, in a northerly and southerly direction from the tropics, so that air throughout the global stratosphere contains nearly equal amounts of chlorine and bromine.

 

In the Southern Hemisphere, the South Pole is part of a huge land mass (Antarctica) that is completely surrounded by ocean. This symmetry produces the meteorological conditions that permit the formation in winter of a frigid region in the stratosphere over the Antarctic continent, contained and bounded by a band of high winds circulating around the perimeter of that region. The very low stratospheric temperatures lead to the formation of clouds (polar stratospheric clouds) that initiate chemical changes that promote production of chemically active chlorine and bromine culminating in rapid ozone loss when sunlight returns to Antarctica in September and October of each year, resulting in the Antarctic ozone hole. The scale of the ozone loss grew through the 1980s as the amount of human-produced ozone-depleting compounds proliferated in the atmosphere. Similar conditions do not exist over the Arctic. The wintertime temperatures in the Arctic stratosphere are not persistently low for as many weeks as over Antarctica, which results in correspondingly less ozone depletion in the Arctic. This is my background...we can discuss it in greater detail and summon the data if you wish.

 

6 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Science sees what it wants to see depending on the funding.

Oh Jeez, how many times. Once again, known science is demonstrable, causal and thus axiomatic, thereby having an unsilenced voice of its own...it doesn't defer to money, that would be unscrupulous "scientists"...and any 'funding' is obliged to demonstrate ineluctable and empirical evidence before it is accepted. 

 

I share the indictment on private sector involvement in the peer review process - particularly in respect of the proliferation of low quality journals and the institutional pressure to publish marginal or trivial findings, but it is easy to exaggerate the extent to which this impedes discovery. Scrutiny through peer review is still rigorous and although far from flawless, this independent sifting process offers a more stringent critique than any pre-publication referee. Moreover, the greatest acclaim in science has always gone to those that refute a claim or see far beyond it. That's a countervailing motive far stronger than the pressure to conform or remain in the thrall of corporate or as you suggested, institutional interest. Irrespective of any views upon the power wielded by either peer pressure or private industry, I am very much of the same opinion of the Astronomer Royal Martin Reese who in recently discussing incidence of fraud and malpractice in science observed that it is no more common - and harder to get away with than other professions. This is quite simply because we have the requisite tools and the mechanisms at our disposal to expose the facts through impartial and objective application of the scientific method - which if correctly employed would not only validate any findings, but act as a leveller.

 

No offence, but why do you feel the need to comment on a subject that you clearly and demonstrably have no knowledge about whatsoever? To reiterate, there is no proven causal relationship between the atmospheric testing of thermonuclear devices and the depletion of the ozone layer. The ozone layer is repairing and recovering following the ban on CFCs. 

[WigstonWanderer]

1 hour ago, yorkie1999 said:

If the hole in the ozone layer was caused by CFC gasses, why was it in one place? Science sees what it wants to see depending on the funding.

Oh dear, oh dear

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, Line-X said:

Oh Jeez, how many times. Once again, known science is demonstrable, causal and thus axiomatic, thereby having an unsilenced voice of its own...it doesn't defer to money, that would be unscrupulous "scientists"...and any 'funding' is obliged to demonstrate ineluctable and empirical evidence before it is accepted. 

 

I share the indictment on private sector involvement in the peer review process - particularly in respect of the proliferation of low quality journals and the institutional pressure to publish marginal or trivial findings, but it is easy to exaggerate the extent to which this impedes discovery. Scrutiny through peer review is still rigorous and although far from flawless, this independent sifting process offers a more stringent critique than any pre-publication referee. Moreover, the greatest acclaim in science has always gone to those that refute a claim or see far beyond it. That's a countervailing motive far stronger than the pressure to conform or remain in the thrall of corporate or as you suggested, institutional interest. Irrespective of any views upon the power wielded by either peer pressure or private industry, I am very much of the same opinion of the Astronomer Royal Martin Reese who in recently discussing incidence of fraud and malpractice in science observed that it is no more common - and harder to get away with than other professions. This is quite simply because we have the requisite tools and the mechanisms at our disposal to expose the facts through impartial and objective application of the scientific method - which if correctly employed would not only validate any findings, but act as a leveller.

 

....is there a way to "frame" a post and make it required reading for everyone before they post on this thread?

 

Because if there is, this should certainly be it.

[leicsmac]

On a positive note, I think I'm definitely seeing something of a shift in attitudes towards climate change issues over the last year or so. There's a lot more media reportage now and people seem to be at least talking about it more, which will hopefully lead to more meaningful action.

[Collymore]

Still think some scientists are too scared to publish findings on fear of  ruining their reputation. 

 

I remember reading about a scientist who claimed he had conducted a homeopathy experiment where he could prove that a drug that had been almost incomprehensibley diluted still retained the same strength on a quantum level. 

 

He risked his career publishing his findings but did it anyway.

 

Another scientist claimed that was he proposed was so ridiculous and impossible he set about disproving it. He too did the experiment and to his surprise found the same results and set about doing the experiment another ten times or so as he simply could not believe what he was seeing. 

 

For the fear of his reputation he quietly let everybody forget he even did the experiment and never published his findings. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Collymore said:

Still think some scientists are too scared to publish findings on fear of  ruining their reputation. 

 

I remember reading about a scientist who claimed he had conducted a homeopathy experiment where he could prove that a drug that had been almost incomprehensibley diluted still retained the same strength on a quantum level. 

 

He risked his career publishing his findings but did it anyway.

 

Another scientist claimed that was he proposed was so ridiculous and impossible he set about disproving it. He too did the experiment and to his surprise found the same results and set about doing the experiment another ten times or so as he simply could not believe what he was seeing. 

 

For the fear of his reputation he quietly let everybody forget he even did the experiment and never published his findings. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry but this sounds too anecdotal to me.

 

Line-X above goes into a great amount of detail above about exactly why good science does get through the peer review process, even if it is radical. It make take some time (continental drift took a long time to be accepted, for instance) but it does.

 

That scientists would harangue a revolutionary new find because they want to maintain the status quo because....reasons, is irrational in the extreme.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49759627

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49773022

 

Exciting stuff!

[leicsmac]

For those on here who do not think humanity in general needs to apply particular action to mitigate the effects of climate change...I have a small thought experiment for you, if you'd be willing to hear it.

 

Consider a small asteroid - let's call it, say, CLIMCHA 2019. It has recently been discovered and classified by the NASA Asteroid Watch as a threat to strike Earth, say in the year 2031 - 12 years from now. It is of a size that would mean it would not immediately wipe out all humanity should it hit, but it would almost certainly reduce civilisation to isolated pockets in a few areas lucky enough not to feel the worst of the effects.

In order to ensure that this asteroid does not hit Earth with all the fun and games that would entail, a concerted multinational effort must be put forth to send up a spacecraft to adjust its angle of approach just enough to be sure that it will miss. This mission will be a significant drain on the economies of all the leading nations which will undoubtedly lead to economic and political pressures.

 

But, here's the kicker.

 

The worlds leading scientists cannot be sure, with certainty, that this asteroid *will* hit Earth. They put the odds at somewhere between 20 to 50% - there's a possibility it might not hit at all and just sail on by. However, there is no time to gather further information - the mission must be funded and begin ASAP or the asteroid will be too close for any kind of technology to shift its path. Additionally, seeing as only one mission can be sent and space-flight is a dangerous thing at the best of times, it cannot be said with certainty that the plan will work - it's merely the best chance.

 

So, knowing all that and knowing the possibility that the entire mission may well end up having been unnecessary in the first place...do you proceed with the mission to deflect the asteroid, or not?

Now having answered that question:

 

If you answered "yes", please explain what makes this situation so different in your view from climate change mitigation when the two scenarios are economically and consequentially very similar, and the odds of such change being caused by climate change in the future are likely a fair bit higher than 50% anyway?

 

And if you answered "no", what kind of likelihood would you accept before you believe such a mission would be warranted? (And I applaud your courage to lay things so much into the hands of Fate.)

 

....just some thoughts.

[Wymsey]

Greta's stance towards Donald Trump doesn't require an explanation..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-49804334/the-moment-greta-saw-president-trump

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Wymeswold fox said:

Greta's stance towards Donald Trump doesn't require an explanation..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-49804334/the-moment-greta-saw-president-trump

Target....acquired.

 

On similar:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-49795270

 

"This is all wrong. I shouldn't be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean, yet you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you?

"You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words."

 

Sadly, most world leaders seem to be immune to shame (that's how they got there in the first place, after all) so I'm not sure how much good merely words will do, but it's good to hear someone lay it on the line so frankly.

[Guest MattP]

This is spot on.

When she does something insane (which appears inevitable) I hope the people that used her take a long hard look at themselves.

[WigstonWanderer]

21 minutes ago, MattP said:

This is spot on.

When she does something insane (which appears inevitable) I hope the people that used her take a long hard look at themselves.

She’s not having an emotional breakdown. What nonsense.

 

I’m not normally in favour of precocious kids, but she is quite articulate and made an impassioned speech that resonates with many people. No doubt she has assistance with speech writing, but she puts it over well and gives every indication that she fully understands what she is saying.

Edited 24 September 2019 by WigstonWanderer

[Facecloth]

21 minutes ago, MattP said:

This is spot on.

When she does something insane (which appears inevitable) I hope the people that used her take a long hard look at themselves.

I kind of felt it was put on tbh. It didn't seem genuine and she can't act. I'm not saying shes not upset, passionate and angry about the situation, I just felt she was hamming it up for  effect.

[leicsmac]

28 minutes ago, MattP said:

This is spot on.

When she does something insane (which appears inevitable) I hope the people that used her take a long hard look at themselves.

 

8 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

She’s not having an emotional breakdown. What nonsense.

 

I’m not normally in favour of precocious kids, but she is quite articulate and made an impassioned speech that resonates with many people. No doubt she has assistance with speech writing, but she puts it over well and gives every indication that she fully understands what she is saying.

 

5 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

I kind of felt it was put on tbh. It didn't seem genuine and she can't act. I'm not saying shes not upset, passionate and angry about the situation, I just felt she was hamming it up for  effect.

The people that say she's being "used" have clearly not spent any length of time with teenagers - they tend to be quite forthright about what they want to do.

 

As for the speech itself, I reckon there was some rhetoric in there for effect too and as I said above I'm not at all sure about how effective it all is anyway, but the fact is that the present softly-softly approach towards entities that could actually help fix the problem is clearly ineffective too, given the data we have.

[SpacedX]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

 

the present softly-softly approach towards entities that could actually help fix the problem is clearly ineffective too, given the data we have.

No doubt the same people will conclude that this is also "hammed up".

[MC Prussian]

Her speech reeks of theatrics and her language is insulting. All emotions, little facts. A 16-year old pawn.

 

"I shouldn't be up here, I should be back in school" - yes, why aren't you? You'd actually learn something in the process, including socializing with your peers.

"... yet you come to us young people for hope" - nope, that'd be technology.

"You have stolen my dreams and my childhood" - seriously, you need a head check, Greta. You're hurt by words - I thought actions speak louder?

"People are suffering, people are dying" - yes, every single day.

"We're at the beginning of a mass extinction" - ok, prove it.

"For more than 30 years, the science has been crystal-clear" - nope, there's a lot of infighting, external influence and controversy.

"With today's emissions levels, that remaining CO2 budget will be gone in less than 8 1/2 years" - wait, Al Gore or more recently AOC referred to ten years, now we've already lost a year and a half in the space of a few months? Can you all please settle for the same time frame? Do you realize that this indicates that the science is not in fact "crystal-clear" and that you are actually contradicting yourself?

"If you choose to fail us, we will never forgive you" - way to alienate people, Greta.

"Change is coming, whether you like it or not". - erm, yes. That's the way it is and has always been. Would you like to go back to 1888 or the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and compare it today's standard of living and working?

 

We are indeed "doing enough" over here in Western Europe - how about you aim your emotional criticism at places such as China or India more specifically?

And no word on the continuing massive population increase in Africa or Asia and its consequences and effects on our resources and air pollution?

No word on the rather excessive CO2 emissions caused by her sailing crew of five or six that had to be flown back to Europe? For a person so concerned with the environment and the ecological footprint, she and/or her support are being rather hypocritical about it.

 

How dare the media still promote a teenager who knows 0 (zero) about climate change? And how dare she claim to speak for "us"?

 

And somebody please tell me what "Climate Justice" is supposed to mean, because it sounds awfully like a new plastic SJW term.

 

Edited 24 September 2019 by MC Prussian

[MC Prussian]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

This is spot on.

When she does something insane (which appears inevitable) I hope the people that used her take a long hard look at themselves.

 

49 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

She’s not having an emotional breakdown. What nonsense.

 

I’m not normally in favour of precocious kids, but she is quite articulate and made an impassioned speech that resonates with many people. No doubt she has assistance with speech writing, but she puts it over well and gives every indication that she fully understands what she is saying.

 

47 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

I kind of felt it was put on tbh. It didn't seem genuine and she can't act. I'm not saying shes not upset, passionate and angry about the situation, I just felt she was hamming it up for  effect.

 

38 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

The people that say she's being "used" have clearly not spent any length of time with teenagers - they tend to be quite forthright about what they want to do.

 

As for the speech itself, I reckon there was some rhetoric in there for effect too and as I said above I'm not at all sure about how effective it all is anyway, but the fact is that the present softly-softly approach towards entities that could actually help fix the problem is clearly ineffective too, given the data we have.

I feel in parts sorry for her - I wonder how she'll see herself, let's say in ten, twenty years' time?

 

She's an intelligent 16-year old and thus I see no point in her putting on this emotional facade when she could just be ice-cold and far more effective talking about climate change facts and how we can go on about solving the issues.

 

Instead, she or her ghost writers revert to scaremongering and partly vitriolic, divisive and alienating rhetoric.

This is an act, a meticulously planned one - please see through it. Demagogy is wrong, no matter what aisle it comes from.

 

Read up on Greta Thunberg and the people/movement behind her:

https://medium.com/@daniilgor/the-real-problem-with-greta-thunberg-29326c3addd5

http://www.theartofannihilation.com/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-for-consent-the-most-inconvenient-truth-capitalism-is-in-danger-of-falling-apart/

Edited 24 September 2019 by MC Prussian

[leicsmac]

In any case, the argument "she's emotionally unstable/ hysterical/whatever" has been used to ignore points brought forward by women and girls since debate became a thing.

 

If Mr Nawaz wanted to do something really useful, he'd actually address the message and the science rather than the person - and stop pretending to care about Miss Thunbergs well being, because if he really cared he too would be pushing for a course of action where activism such as hers is no longer needed.

Edited 24 September 2019 by leicsmac

[Kopfkino]

In however many years when her mental health is completely shot and who knows what has happened to her the same people that laid her will be pretending to be sad. 

 

Its the same technique as Hamas, use children as shields. Still people can do whatever in the name of climate change. 

[Guest MattP]

38 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

In any case, the argument "she's emotionally unstable/ hysterical/whatever" has been used to ignore points brought forward by women and girls since debate became a thing.

 

If Mr Nawaz wanted to do something really useful, he'd actually address the message and the science rather than the person - and stop pretending to care about Miss Thunbergs well being, because if he really cared he too would be pushing for a course of action where activism such as hers is no longer needed.

She isn't bringing any points forward. 

 

She's ranting at everyone and anyone without offering up a single solution to the problem she demands we all solve.

 

There is nothing we could do which will stop this activism, which is fast becoming the West's answer to a religious cult.

[Finnaldo]

Some people are very quick (and very smug) to point out that things won't change unless young people engage with politics, but they won't because [insert Boomer rhetoric].

 

A 16 year old girl does that, gains access to a world stage, and the very same people are suddenly not very smug at all.

 

I'm sure if she has a breakdown it's completely 'The Left™️'s fault for using advanced alien brainwashing technology in collaboration with Hamas child soldier techniques ( ) and certainly not the dogpiling by right wing media Classic Liberals™️ like the ever obliging Aaron Banks hoping she drowns in the ocean, or the disgusting wave of shite thrown at her by the like of Katie Hopkins and the army of anonymous right wing trolls Classic Liberal Master Debaters™️ which certainly AREN'T threatening and denigrating a 16 year old girl rather than challenge her actual talking points.

[leicsmac]

5 hours ago, Line-X said:

No doubt the same people will conclude that this is also "hammed up".

Absolutely. None so deaf as those who won't hear.

 

5 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Her speech reeks of theatrics and her language is insulting. All emotions, little facts. A 16-year old pawn.

 

"I shouldn't be up here, I should be back in school" - yes, why aren't you? You'd actually learn something in the process, including socializing with your peers.

"... yet you come to us young people for hope" - nope, that'd be technology.

"You have stolen my dreams and my childhood" - seriously, you need a head check, Greta. You're hurt by words - I thought actions speak louder?

"People are suffering, people are dying" - yes, every single day.

"We're at the beginning of a mass extinction" - ok, prove it.

"For more than 30 years, the science has been crystal-clear" - nope, there's a lot of infighting, external influence and controversy.

"With today's emissions levels, that remaining CO2 budget will be gone in less than 8 1/2 years" - wait, Al Gore or more recently AOC referred to ten years, now we've already lost a year and a half in the space of a few months? Can you all please settle for the same time frame? Do you realize that this indicates that the science is not in fact "crystal-clear" and that you are actually contradicting yourself?

"If you choose to fail us, we will never forgive you" - way to alienate people, Greta.

"Change is coming, whether you like it or not". - erm, yes. That's the way it is and has always been. Would you like to go back to 1888 or the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and compare it today's standard of living and working?

 

We are indeed "doing enough" over here in Western Europe - how about you aim your emotional criticism at places such as China or India more specifically?

And no word on the continuing massive population increase in Africa or Asia and its consequences and effects on our resources and air pollution?

No word on the rather excessive CO2 emissions caused by her sailing crew of five or six that had to be flown back to Europe? For a person so concerned with the environment and the ecological footprint, she and/or her support are being rather hypocritical about it.

 

How dare the media still promote a teenager who knows 0 (zero) about climate change? And how dare she claim to speak for "us"?

 

And somebody please tell me what "Climate Justice" is supposed to mean, because it sounds awfully like a new plastic SJW term.

 

 

 

 

"yes, why aren't you? You'd actually learn something in the process, including socializing with your peers" - yep, it's sad that it falls to her to do all of this because no one else seems to have the fortitude to step up.

 

"nope, that'd be technology" - and yet there are a lot of people who stand directly in the way of the technology required.

 

"seriously, you need a head check, Greta. You're hurt by words - I thought actions speak louder?" - yeah, and "words will never hurt me". Dangerous fallacy. Words have power, which is why so many governments often don't like them. The right words can incite, condemn and a thousand other things without lifting a finger.

 

"yes, every single day" - and trying to do something about the suffering of these people isn't a good thing?

 

"ok, prove it" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

Lack of biodiversity of whatever kind *will* end up hurting humans too, among other consequences.

 

"nope, there's a lot of infighting, external influence and controversy" - https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

There really isn't, quit with the misinformation.

 

"wait, Al Gore or more recently AOC referred to ten years, now we've already lost a year and a half in the space of a few months? Can you all please settle for the same time frame? Do you realize that this indicates that the science is not in fact "crystal-clear" and that you are actually contradicting yourself?" - Right, you want an "exact time to disaster" clock ticking down before you'll agree to act, yes?

 

"way to alienate people, Greta" - if those influential people do end up doing nothing and it all goes to hell, then alienation is the best those people might expect.

 

"erm, yes. That's the way it is and has always been. Would you like to go back to 1888 or the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and compare it today's standard of living and working?" - put the strawman away please, they catch fire so easily. No one outside daft neo-Luddites thinks that we need to abandon technology. What we need to do is advance it in a way that mitigates the effects of climate change, and do it in a timely fashion.

 

"how about you aim your emotional criticism at places such as China or India more specifically?" - how well would that work without government backing? You know that it wouldn't, so again, strawman. Besides, it's not like the Earth will spare the countries that all played ball, will it?

 

"And no word on the continuing massive population increase in Africa or Asia and its consequences and effects on our resources and air pollution?" - ah, a good spot of neo-Malthusian eugenics. How splendid. If we're really going there, are you absolutely sure that it's not less kids all around the world that might be a good thing, rather than less kids in just those places?

 

Seriously Prussian, you have put across these arguments time and time again - they were wrong before, they're wrong now and it belongs in the same scientific folder as the Flat Earth Theory and anti-vaxxer belief - with about the same risk to public health as the latter.

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

In however many years when her mental health is completely shot and who knows what has happened to her the same people that laid her will be pretending to be sad. 

 

Its the same technique as Hamas, use children as shields. Still people can do whatever in the name of climate change. 

As above, I'm not sure the detractors here can really claim to be looking after her welfare when they remain adamantly opposed to a course of action that would render the need for campaign no longer necessary.

 

 

4 hours ago, MattP said:

She isn't bringing any points forward. 

 

She's ranting at everyone and anyone without offering up a single solution to the problem she demands we all solve.

 

There is nothing we could do which will stop this activism, which is fast becoming the West's answer to a religious cult.

She's saying - and has been saying for some time - "listen to the science, listen to the scientists."

 

And what they propose is something like this:

 

https://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank

 

This is not pie-in-the-sky BS, it is a reasonably detailed plan for helping us move forward that could be applied by governments given political will. People need to stop thinking that no such solutions exist or are being presented, they are there, people just seem to not care to hear them.

 

 

[leicsmac]

On 23/09/2019 at 22:09, leicsmac said:

For those on here who do not think humanity in general needs to apply particular action to mitigate the effects of climate change...I have a small thought experiment for you, if you'd be willing to hear it.

 

Consider a small asteroid - let's call it, say, CLIMCHA 2019. It has recently been discovered and classified by the NASA Asteroid Watch as a threat to strike Earth, say in the year 2031 - 12 years from now. It is of a size that would mean it would not immediately wipe out all humanity should it hit, but it would almost certainly reduce civilisation to isolated pockets in a few areas lucky enough not to feel the worst of the effects.

In order to ensure that this asteroid does not hit Earth with all the fun and games that would entail, a concerted multinational effort must be put forth to send up a spacecraft to adjust its angle of approach just enough to be sure that it will miss. This mission will be a significant drain on the economies of all the leading nations which will undoubtedly lead to economic and political pressures.

 

But, here's the kicker.

 

The worlds leading scientists cannot be sure, with certainty, that this asteroid *will* hit Earth. They put the odds at somewhere between 20 to 50% - there's a possibility it might not hit at all and just sail on by. However, there is no time to gather further information - the mission must be funded and begin ASAP or the asteroid will be too close for any kind of technology to shift its path. Additionally, seeing as only one mission can be sent and space-flight is a dangerous thing at the best of times, it cannot be said with certainty that the plan will work - it's merely the best chance.

 

So, knowing all that and knowing the possibility that the entire mission may well end up having been unnecessary in the first place...do you proceed with the mission to deflect the asteroid, or not?

Now having answered that question:

 

If you answered "yes", please explain what makes this situation so different in your view from climate change mitigation when the two scenarios are economically and consequentially very similar, and the odds of such change being caused by climate change in the future are likely a fair bit higher than 50% anyway?

 

And if you answered "no", what kind of likelihood would you accept before you believe such a mission would be warranted? (And I applaud your courage to lay things so much into the hands of Fate.)

 

....just some thoughts.

Still waiting, still interested.

[Carl the Llama]

[MC Prussian]

48 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Because that's exactly what she said and that's exactly why she's being criticized (or rather, the people behind her).

Don't you love Twitter, that activist and anger management central.

 

But mkay, lay off, she's only 16 and has no message, only anger and feelings. And a terrific PR machine behind her.

 

Btw, what are "grown adults" - isn't that a pleonasm?