Post reply

Reply to the message by dhw

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> dhw:[i] You have simply drawn attention to examples of measures that do not achieve the balance which is required. There is nothing in your response that contradicts anything I have written. [/i] :-) 
> And:
> dhw: [i]Clearly you agree with everything I have said, but for some reason you hate to say so.[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]You are pressing for more concern. I am not.[/i]
> 
> I press for pragmatic action to prevent the continuation and escalation of the damage already being caused, to be balanced against the need to prevent social and economic disaster. You have agreed. In what way is your concern less than mine?
> 
> DAVID: [i]Another assessment that I agree with:[/i]
> https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzQZTMHNwxcbkGwwJsGjSNjlWtDv
> 
> dhw: [i]You have reproduced the Hossenfelder article you quoted on 8 February. To refresh your memory, this was my reply:[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]She accepts the reality of climate change, and her prophecy makes it horrifyingly clear that economic interests (plus AI and people’s reluctance to change their habits) will outweigh what you and I and even Musk have agreed are very real threats to our environment. I agree with you that we should ignore the panicky folks. As I keep saying, and you keep agreeing, current known dangers should be enough to make us strive towards a balanced, pragmatic approach to avert their continuation and – as she points out – the probable escalation of those dangers. Sadly, Trump epitomizes those powers which will lead to more and more damage and will help Hossenfelder’s prophecy to come true.
> Is there anything you disagree with?[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]You may not recognize it, but you panic sticks out. Horrifyingly clear?[/i]
> 
> Do you or don’t you agree that if current practices continue (e.g. dependence on fossil fuels, deforestation,  earth, air and water poisoned by polluting modes of transport and agriculture), the damage to human and animal health will escalate? Why is this regarded as “panic” when the effects are already only too obvious? And why is it regarded as “panic” to stipulate that whatever measures are taken must be balanced against the need to prevent social and economic disaster, and we should therefore be devoting ourselves to finding viable alternatives to existing practices as quickly as pragmatically possible? 
> 
>  DAVID: [i]What is quite clear is China's ambition to rule the world. Drill baby, drill is a current answer to maintain strength. Climate policy becomes very secondary from that viewpoint with nukes everywhere.[/i]
> 
> This has nothing whatsoever to do with the need to change the current practices I have listed. Stop dodging.