Exnihiloest wrote:
Then we are presented with the warming as a catastrophe. This would be true if we were able to accurately quantify the increase in ocean levels and show a real risk for hundreds of thousands of people, or millions. Here again we are unable to do so, alarmist forecasts are always revised downward. Then it would be necessary to demonstrate how reductions of CO2 could impact the climate. This demonstration, we do not have it either, or with a precision as ridiculous as the rest. The anthropogenic CO2, it is 4% of the CO2, and it is believed that by playing on 4% weights, we will make the weight next to the rest of which 96% of the natural CO2?! Another nice scam.
And if you planted yourself? What would you say to the future generation?
"Well sorry guys I messed up, good continuation"!
I guess you're not very young and so in a way the outcome of all of this does not matter to you, am I wrong?
There are two possible scenarios:
1)the RCA is bogus and we took action for nothing, result, nothing, but no disaster.
2)the RCA is a reality and we have not taken action despite a large number of indices, we are there
in the context of endangering the lives of others.
Then I see that no one is consulted on the need or not to fight global warming, given the price to be paid. We may prefer a warming, and all the more so since this warming is always much lower than the forecasts of the IPCC of previous years. But despite the importance of the subject, and the scientific uncertainty, the opinion of the citizen is not asked. A referendum? Let's not think about it, the technocrats and the politicians have decided "it's bad for you, we will decide for you", and they hammer it on us with the media. The measures against global warming are a denial of democracy.
Be careful, choosing the largest number does not mean the right choice.
For example, a referendum on GMOs is worthy of interest because its last will end up in our stomachs at one time or another, and it is a right to eat what we want a fortiori with such an extensive biodiversity.
On the other hand, a referendum on petroleum taxation would be particularly dangerous.
If the citizen lambada had to decide the price at the pump, my little finger told me that the majority would decide to lower prices, which would have unfortunate consequences: more accidents and deaths, more pollution and sick, more of infrastructure expenses, traffic jams, etc.
The recent referendum on the NDDL airport demonstrates that the majority is not necessarily the most appropriate decision base.
A good democracy needs to be informed by non-partisan and objective decisions, which I think is very difficult in our time.
Measures against global warming are a denial of democracy.
At the time of today I still have not seen the shadow of an anti-warming measurebut only metrics aimed at developing a new economy based on renewable energies that will boost slow growth.
The use of oil and gas will still be the case for a long time, the goal of renewable energy and to help maintain global economic growth in a context of depletion the time required for the advent of a technology (certainly fusion) to move to the next phase:
2.0 economismReconciling economics and ecology is not possible, it is two antinomic tendencies, the future humanity will have to make a choice.
An econology is only possible if the economy recedes in the face of ecology, which does not exclude social progress quite the opposite.
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.