Post reply

Reply to the message by David Turell

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:

> > 
> > DAVID: [i]I agree with the fact that future climate is an issue to study. It is very multifactorial and the current predictive models are not correct. I follow the climate studies very closely. No alarm is needed.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]You have completely ignored every single argument with which you have previously agreed.
> > I have summarized the situation above. Please tell us what you disagree with.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]No longer specifically ignored.[/i]
> > 
> > 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] :-) 
> > 
> > dhw: Clearly you agree with everything I have said, but for some reason you hate to say so.
> 
> You are pressing for more concern. I am not.
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Another assessment that I agree with:[/i]
> > 
> > https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzQZTMHNwxcbkGwwJsGjSNjlWtDv
> > 
> > dhw: You have reproduced the Hossenfelder article you quoted on 8 February. To refresh your memory, this was my reply:
> > 
> > [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.[/i]
> > 
> > Is there anything you disagree with?
> 
> You may not recognize it, but you panic sticks out. Horrifyingly clear? 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..