re: #47 Obdicut
re: #48 ignoranceisfatal
So my head spun one way, then 360’d back the other way. If I may be so bold as to pose an uneducated question/statement.
Given we know or can assume AGW is 99.9% solid evidence (hate to say 100% because you never know) And I’m pretty sold on the A part of AGW, it sound like we have varying issues as to what the results may be and whether we have the power to stop/reverse it, which to me seems very similar in terms of what actions we should take to where deniers end up, though on a more intellectually honest road. Instead of “we shouldn’t do anything, it’s a hoax,” It’s more like “We proably shouldn’t do anything drastic, because we don’t know the ramifications.
Therefore, how can you (Obdicut) talk about the horrible effects on agriculture, water sources etc. when one thing I know isn’t for sure is the probably effects of AGW. I don’t know if it’s just a denier claim that “if AGW is real, it may not be bad” but do we know for sure that it would, or is it just a measure of how bad, how much can we help, etc?
Again I’m genuine in my concern, and new to crawling out from under the full-skeptic rock.