Please explain why AGW is an existential threat

Consider: An existential threat is one that threatens the very existence of mankind; we are at least talking about the potential to undermine the very viability of human civilization here. I don't know about you, but I find that to be ridiculous. Tell me, which major coastal city is underwater yet or about to be? The anthropocene started around 1950 according to some, so where is the devastation from the last 70 years of AGW? Where's the proof that the current heat wave in this country or climate disasters elsewhere are attributable to AGW? Could it be a factor? Yeah, maybe. But how much of a factor? Nobody really knows.

Anthropogenic global warming could be a serious problem and its impacts could be substantial—but in no way does it seriously threaten our species or human civilization. And with reasonable mitigation and adaptation, mankind will continue to move forward—reducing poverty, living healthier lives, and stabilizing our population. To claim orherwise is a lie, perpetrated by those with something to gain from our fear. It's one thing to say we might have a problem here, but it's another to say we're all gonna die of we don't spend trillions of dollars to fight AGW.


"We're all gonna die?"

Get a grip. Existential risks are defined as "risks that threaten the destruction of humanity's long-term potential." The instantiation of an existential risk (an existential catastrophe) would either cause outright human extinction or irreversibly lock in a drastically inferior state of affairs.

There's a consensus of scientist and experts. And it's called that for a reason.
 
Is anyone else wondering if Oddball is researching Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau?
 
LOL

If the animals in the wild haven't eaten you, it's pretty clear why YOU are still alive.




so·cial con·tract
noun

  1. an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection. Theories of a social contract became popular in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries among theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as a means of explaining the origin of government and the obligations of subjects.
You Marxist nitwits need to learn then definitions of basic words.

Contracts are explicit and exclusive....They're limited to the principals involved, who have voluntarily entered into an agreement, for a specified period of time...There are also terms and conditions for satisfaction or breach of said contract.

Were your mythical "social contract" a real contract -which it isn't- any given court would deem it an illegal contract of adhesion and nullify it ab initio.

SocContract.jpg
 
Which is exactly why your opinion doesn't matter to anyone else
That’s fine. I’m not here to have my viewpoints confirmed or approved by you or anyone else.
Bullshit. And childishly self-centered.
You are who and where you are almost entirely because of the efforts of others.
If you've made anything of yourself it was largely, if not entirely due to those who came before.
You're the benefit of the social contract society has created
I am a narcissist, among other things. Actually I am who and what I am IN SPITE OF the vast majority of people in my life now and over the years. That’s what happens to those of us who see the world through a different lens and won’t conform to everyone else’s rules.
Cause it's all about you
In my world it is.
 
"We're all gonna die?"

Get a grip. Existential risks are defined as "risks that threaten the destruction of humanity's long-term potential." The instantiation of an existential risk (an existential catastrophe) would either cause outright human extinction or irreversibly lock in a drastically inferior state of affairs.

There's a consensus of scientist and experts. And it's called that for a reason.

“Millennials and people, you know, Gen Z and all these folks that will come after us are looking up and we’re like: ‘The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?’ ” Sounds like 'we're all gonna die' to me. And she ain't only idiot progressive liberal saying it either.


There is no consensus that AGW is an existential threat. To say otherwise as you implied is a LIE.
 
That's my point, to help to encourage participation, but only when denialist's question are genuinely asking for an answer. You're not there yet, but you've put a foot in the door.

I'll dodge the disingenuous attempt by suggesting that you pay attention to the news that shows all the cars and houses floating down the river.

And you might want to call up the insurance company before they get their bags packed?

How many new nuclear reactors should we build, in order to reduce our CO2?
 
That’s fine. I’m not here to have my viewpoints confirmed or approved by you or anyone else.

I am a narcissist, among other things. Actually I am who and what I am IN SPITE OF the vast majority of people in my life now and over the years. That’s what happens to those of us who see the world through a different lens and won’t conform to everyone else’s rules.

In my world it is.
You're not near the narcissist as are the virtue beacons, who want you to believe that they care for anyone but their own selves.

Think about it....Whose value judgements do they want to impose on everyone else, at gunpoint if necessary?
 
You're not near the narcissist as are the virtue beacons, who want you to believe that they care for anyone but their own selves
I think you underestimate my level of narcissism. I openly and actively go out of my way to keep from helping other people, even if it might help me as well.
Think about it....Whose value judgements do they want to impose on everyone else, at gunpoint if necessary?
Not my concern. I tuned them out decades ago and I generally have a bigger gun and more willingness to use it than they do.
 
I think you underestimate my level of narcissism. I openly and actively go out of my way to keep from helping other people, even if it might help me as well.

Not my concern. I tuned them out decades ago and I generally have a bigger gun and more willingness to use it than they do.
All well and good....But don't make the mistake of believing that you're not dealing with malignant narcissists, concealing their narcissism behind a faux veneer of "concern".
 
Which is exactly why your opinion doesn't matter to anyone else.




You can obviously read. Why don't you educate yourself about the difference between weather and climate?
Aside from the false "thesis" you claim as a strawman, your 7 mo. temperature dilemma reveals an even more simple-minded understanding of the world-wide climate crisis.

Hellbilly is right. You have no interest in understanding the problem.
People only learn when they want to.
So I just have to accept it on Faith? Is that really science?
 
All well and good....But don't make the mistake of believing that you're not dealing with malignant narcissists, concealing their narcissism behind a faux veneer of "concern".
That would really only be an issue if I were stupid enough to listen to and contemplate implementing the ideas of others. I don’t make that mistake.
 

Forum List

Back
Top