re: #640 LudwigVanQuixote

PIMF

Actually no.

The logic is simple.

Look at it as a risk analysis. The science will tell you that the “row thinking” favors catastrophic collapse from AGW by much much more than 50%.

I even wrote a bunch on this very thread for why, of course, it is much much greater in favor of AGW being real than 50%

But let’s for the sake of argument say it is 50, 50

If AGW is wrong, and you do something to stop it, you have a 50% where the worst thing that happens is a period of recession - which is debatable, because there would be a huge growth of domestic energy production. It is unclear that society as we know it will collapse or that hundreds of millions will die as a result.

If AGW is right though, and you do nothing, the we have hundreds of millions of deaths, war, famine, plague and the collapse of civilization as we know it.

So suppose I offered you a choice, go through door A, and you have a 50% chance of getting punched in the belly. Go though door B, and you have a 50% chance of getting shot after you are gang raped by a troop of angry gorillas.

Which is the logical door to choose?

Now what if I told though that the best that science and data can tell you is that actually going through door B, in reality has a much greater than 90% of getting shot after a primate love fest?

What is the logical choice?

The logical choice is not the question. A flawed argument does not mean the answer provided is wrong, just that the argument was flawed. As for what needs to be done-I am trying to review the options and come to a conclusion. I aint as smart as you.