"GB" wrote in message
...
On 19/05/2021 17:09, Robin wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:57, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:18, Tim Streater wrote:

If the alternative is climate catastrophe, then I'm prepared to stop
occasionally.

How d'ye know that's the alternative?

Let's do a risk analysis:

Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
wrong, then you'll be suffering a little inconvenience unnecessarily.
That's not the end of the world.


Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
right, but we refuse to suffer a little inconvenience. That is the end
of the world.


I don't feel that I need to know for certain that the climate
catastrophe hypothesis is correct. It's just not fair to future
generations to risk it.

Do you think the "end of the world" hyperbole helps? I am sorry to say
that to me it just signals someone who (consciously or not) has bought
into the hyperbolic non-science. And probably also thinks that eating
meat should be banned from 2025.


I couldn't resist the wording. Sorry about that! Runaway climate change

Taint gunna happen.

would make life on earth extremely difficult, and that is one of the
possible outcomes.

Nope.

Clearly, the earth would continue to exist.

The point, though, is that people are complaining that they may not be
able to use their favourite picnic spot on long journeys, whilst ignoring
the idea that people in arid areas may effectively be without water.

That last is bull**** too.

Those too losses don't seem comparable to me.

Pity one is just your silly little pig ignorant fantasy.