oh I agree that there's a nonzero probability of "runaway climate," I just don't think it's likely at all. and I think it's stupid to act on that level of probability in the name of the precautionary principle. I've used this example before, but just because there is a nonzero probability of me dying in a plane crash is no reason (a) to fear planes or (b) avoid air travel entirely. There are risks we accept all the time even though we realize there's a chance that the worst-case scenario could conceivably happen. And we don't believe that that stance is irrational, nor do we accuse people who employ that kind of pragmatic logic to be "showing a clear bias," at least not in the way I take it you are suggesting.
I actually also disagree with your statement that "There will be a planet if that happen, just extremely difficult for human to live on." I don't see why it would be "extremely difficult for humans to live on" . . . I believe humans are highly adaptable and if the future is anything like the past humans will adapt in this case as well.
You don’t need to defend your bias (we do all have them, just to various degree) since you already said there is a possibility. While you think it’s extremely unlikely, others could too but have a very different viewpoint. The plane example is a good one for a single self, of a short duration and of a choice to be on the plane or not (your viewpoint), but not so valid for species and long duration (another viewpoint especially for the younger gen). Once you are at that possibility, there isn’t just you that can perish in a plane, it could be all human kind as there is no “safe” plane left - 100% failure from there on, and everyone must be in the plane.
I disagree that there's a chance of "100% failure." I just think that's a nonsensical view, and I really don't think there are any real scientists who argue that that's a possibility. Only actors who play scientists on TV : https://www.thenational.ae/uae/harrison-ford-delivers-apocalyptic-climate-change-warning-1.823568 Honestly, I believe that the apocalyptic warnings about climate change are no better than the end-is-near apocalypticism of any other form of religious zealotry.
Hmm... you ask people for a thoughtful discussion of topics. And here is a series of tweets from one of the architects of the GND. And here's your response.
I read through the exchange and looked her up at the Institute for Women's Policy Research. I think it's laughable for her to put the spin on such an anemic pile of tripe and expect her "authority" to carry any weight whatsoever. And I think it's laughable to post a tweet with a "thread" and expect that to count as a thoughtful discussion of a topic. Tweets are rarely a thoughtful discussion of anything. You of all people should know that.
here, for more serious reading . . . perhaps the best thing I've read this week about the Green New Deal. https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/02/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal/
Right wing blather. Which I am coming to expect now from someone who pretends to be a moderate Democrat...
One of the people that helped formulate the New Green Deal... yea, what would she know about it? But sure, better to post right wing op-eds. And memes.
the Green New Deal is nonsense. So why should anyone respect "One of the people that helped formulate the New Green {sic} Deal"? c'mon now. All she is deserving of is a meme. And that took more time to put together (30 seconds) than it was worth.
look, in my view the Green New Deal is just as nonsensical (actually more so) than just about everything Trump has said about the wall, including having Mexico pay for it. But just look at the cost estimates: the total Trump Beautiful Wall™ is projected to cost $80-100 billion in 2019 dollars. Fine. The AOC/Markey/and-every-other-Democrat-who-has-signed-onto-it Green New Deal is projected to cost $6.6 trillion a year. That's TRILLION with a capital T. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...casio-cortez-s-green-new-deal-is-unaffordable . Spoiler "So this quick, rough cost estimate — which doesn’t include all of the promises listed in the FAQ — adds up to about $6.6 trillion a year. That’s more than three times as much as the federal government collects in tax revenue, and equal to about 34 percent of the U.S.’s entire gross domestic product. And that’s assuming no cost overruns — infrastructure projects, especially in the U.S., are subject to cost bloat. Total government spending already accounts for about 38 percent of the economy, so if no other programs were cut to pay for the Green New Deal, it could mean that almost three-quarters of the economy would be spent via the government." So explain to me exactly again why Gunn-Wright "deserves my respect" . . .??
and another day another data point from folks who can't resist slinging ad hominem mud . . . just sayin.
GND appears to be an important discussions... just look at the number of posts here and the attention it gets nationally. You may disagree with the policy (and apparently you do, passionately) but belittling the people who formulated the policy doesn't strengthen your argument. I posted the tweets because I didn't know about the policy and was interested in an explanation. Since you position yourself as someone who believes its important to see "opposing viewpoints" yours seems a hypocritical response.
You're right, none of them have mattered ever to those who suffer from them. And your'e wrong, no planet no problems. That said, we're headed that way because this country can't fix an easy problem like homelessness so how the hell they gonna save a planet.
