If it is near there is absolutely nothing that can be done now. If it is not near - then the alarmists are just that - alarmists.
I find this more than anticlimatic, Bob. So your position is that we should do nothing about GW. I gather you have dismissed all the arguments that say there is much that can be done before seminole goes underwater in Florida. ;-)
I don't see anything particularly scientific in this argument, which is where I assumed all this questioning of credentials was meant to go. The argument is simply fatalistic.
As for educational backgrounds, as I've typed here, I'm a retired academic, which is the volvo driving, chardonnay sipping, I forget how the rest goes, PhD crowd. And, worst of all, my PhD is in sociology. Can't get any worse can it?
And since I absolutely loved college, found a home once I got there, there are several bachelors degrees wandering around in the background as well. I'm a bit of an overprepared escapee from Katelew's preferred world.
But whichever world, it would seem, per simply human reasoning grounds, one would engage in probabilistic reasoning rather than binary logic. Of course, it's not possible to do that with GW with anything like precision. But the literature that Sam and others keep popping up here gives such. And comes with very large consensual consensus from the scientific community.
I recommend that literature to you. It's very dense but I would not be surprised if it's one of the major political issues of the next presidency.
At least, let's hope so. |
