Or maybe kimmie is right and you are wrong, or maybe both of you are wrong and aliens did it. Something to consider.
I really dislike posts like yours above; I don’t mind rhetoric in and of itself, but I do mind it if that rhetoric is empty of content.:sad_yes:
It’s not at all empty content, but the very heart of the matter for us laypersons who have to make decisions about what to do about anthropogenic global warming.
If Kimmie is right, but the people think he’s wrong and we reduce our GHGs so it gets below 350 ppm in the atmosphere, that is the very best scenario – we save money without lowering living standards or productivity; the economy improves (becomes more efficient, staying much closer to the PPF (production possibilities frontier)); we mitigate a host of other environmental problems (since most GHG emissions also go along with other types of harmful and toxic emissions, etc); we save resources for future generations; we save potable water for everyone (pumping and heating water usually involved GHG emissions, so using water more efficiently/conservatively is helpful all around); we perhaps reduce the cause of wars and conflicts (by using fossil fuels and other resources more efficiently/conservatively); we improve our health and reduce crime (by some of us offsetting a bit of car driving with bicycling or walking); we have more time for family (by moving closer to work). It’s the ultimate win-win-win-win situation and without any horrors of AGW, such as increased tornado & hurricane intensity (coming now in off-seasons), droughts, floods, disease spread, land loss from sea rise; stronger neg arctic oscillations (and $billions in winter crop destruction in N. Mexico and my area); heat stress and death for people, animals, and plants; species extinction; loss of food productivity; disruption of the glacial/snowpack cycle that irrigates a lot of farmland and bring potable water during summer; and other such life-harming and killing disasters. This is known as the
FALSE POSITIVE…the very best that can happen to us.
If Kimmie is right and we believe him and fail to mitigate AGW, then we lose all the above benefits and continue to engage in life harming activities, bec I guess only a truly serious problem like AGW would have gotten us off our duffs into action, and we are naturally lazy???–one wonders why in the name of God we are not seriously mitigating AGW by doing all the sensible measures that would help mitigate it and many other problems, even if we think it is NOT happening.
TRUE NEGATIVE.
If Kimmie is wrong, but we don’t believe him, and we mitigate AGW, then we not only avert a very serious problem, but also benefit in these many other ways. The sad part is some scientists are saying there is already 2.4C warming in the pipes, even if we were to reduce to zero right now, so there will be still be alot of harm from AGW, even if we take the strictest reduction path. This is the
TRUE POSITIVE.
If Kimmie is wrong and we believe him and fail to mitigate AGW, the repercussions would be extremely serious and either result in climate hysteresis and loss of a tremendous portion of life on earth, including harm and death to much of humanity (if you could call it that, since they failed to address a true catastrophe). Or, it could even mean runaway warming and the end of all life on earth, since solar irradiation has slowly been increasing over the millions of years since our last hysteresis episodes, and our exceedingly rapid (in geological terms) AGW, along with this increased irradiation, might just be enough to snuff out all life. This is the
FALSE NEGATIVE…the very worst of all scenarios. Sort of like failing to believe in God and Hell, when these are real.
So the decision is up to us whether or not to believe an anonymous blogger and Exxon/Koch funded denialist henchmen or the 1000s of climate scientists who say AGW is real, despite a few minor mistakes they may make (which do not disprove AGW), which are caught by the scientific, self-correcting process.
Whether to risk life on earth because of what some blogger is saying, or whether to give the climate scientists the benefit of the doubt, even if we have our own doubts and they fail to cross some "t"s or dot some "i"s, because we prudently seek to do God’s will and live a righteous and upright life, and because we can’t abide the idea of contributing to the harm and death of our fellow humans and the rest of God’s biota.
