re: #636 LudwigVanQuixote

Actually it is a very logical argument.

The logic is case a is less bad than case b.

Very simple really.

Now you make some comments about ascribing adjectives to the worst case scenarios.

OK, so look at the actual science. You will find, that the worst case scenarios, as predicted by actual scientists involve things like greater than 2 meter raises in sea levl by the end of the century coupled with drastically reduced agriculture and loss of fresh water to vast regions of the planet.

Such a thing really will cause the collapse of civilization as we know it.

And the market would collapse too.

The mid range predictions only call for a one meter rise by the end of the century - coupled with drastic loss of agriculture and fresh wwater resources.

That too will cause a collapse of the economy as we know it.

Now you can call that alarmist all you want and plug your ears and call it other names too. OR you could fact check me and honestly look at the legitimate science.

Look, I really think you have me wrong. I am not arguing science. I am arguing the logic here. You asked why and I explained. There’s gotta be a professor out there who can speak to this and maybe even tell me where, logically I am wrong. It is purely an argument on logic, not AGW. You are arguing that the science proves AGW therefore we must do X. I understand that, BUT this argument says we don’t need to prove AGW to prove what we should do.