re: #92 LotharBot

Now, the flaw can be fixed. You need two things: a convincing argument that the catastrophic consequences from Global Warming are VERY likely to happen (or, in PW’s case, that a specific god is VERY likely to be real), and a convincing argument that the alternative risks are enough LESS likely that they’re overwhelmed by the key risk. In other words, you need to be able to highlight that one box in the table and say “this is bad enough AND likely enough that it overwhelms everything else in the table.” Skeptics won’t act based on a philosophy 101 argument; they’ll act if their risk-reward assessment makes them believe the danger of Global Warming is real enough and bad enough to justify the cost.

The science is more than strong enough and settled that the row thinking is utterly dominated by the threat of an oncoming collapse. The development and deployment of domestic energy production would generate thousands of jobs and pay for itself.