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:

> DAVID: [i]You are pressing for more concern. I am not[/i].
> 
> dhw: [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?[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]Believe me, it is less.[/i]
> 
> You accept all the arguments, but you care less about the future of humanity than I do. I’ll take that as a compliment.
> 
> 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. (No need to repeat the article or my response to it.)[/i]
> 
> dhw:[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?[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]Using wind and sun are very expensive and are not adequate solutions. Hydrogen is a dangerous substitute since it is so volatile a gas, but it offers a way to reduce carbon related sources.[/i]
> 
> You clearly share my view that we need to find viable and, of course, efficient alternatives. You just don’t care as much.
> 
> 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]
> 
> dhw: [i]This has nothing whatsoever to do with the need to change the current practices I have listed. Stop dodging.[/i]
> 
> DAVID:[i] World politics must be considered. Open your mind to their importance.[/i]
> 
> Do you really think I am unaware of the appalling state of world politics at the moment, and the huge dangers we are confronted with? My plea to you is the same as your instruction to me: yes, world politics are a huge concern, perhaps threatening disasters even more imminent than environmental disasters, but please do not close your mind to the importance of the latter.