read any paper on geoengineering and it say's the outcome can be worst then before and onece started they can't stop and if they would it start a world wide catastrophe
An extinction-level asteroid impact is not just plausible, but it has happened many times and is thus a calculable risk. What limit does the "precautionary principle" place on efforts to prevent this? None. The effect of ending fossil fuel use is also calculable. We can calculate the probability that human misery will only deepen as human progress is throttled, and we return to pre-industrial subsistence agriculture. Keep in mind that solar panels and wind turbines were invented in the 19th century but were only a curiosity since they were economically infeasible even then. Without cheap energy and petrochemicals from fossil fuels, the prospect of building massive quantities of them now would be ludicrous, as it was then. Population biologists predict that our numbers will likely not exceed 10 billion, but only if the current rate of development is allowed to continue. This will spread the prosperity that has proven to be the most reliable form of birth control. If we instead return to pre-industrial squalor, only famine, disease, and human misery will limit population growth, just as Malthus predicted. The human species will likely survive, but we will have squandered the golden opportunity to use, and thus advance beyond, fossil fuels. Our technology sits atop an infrastructure pyramid whose foundation is the cheap energy and the fertilizers and petrochemicals that fossil fuels make possible. Strip that away and civilization crumbles. The foolish mistake Malthus made in the 18th century with his predictions of doom, was that he assumed all invention and innovation was done, and that technology would be forever static. Ehrlich made the same mistake in the 1970s with The Population Bomb. We have only been making significant use of fossil fuels for about a century, so we have no justification in assuming that we will still rely on them a century from now. We can't know what technologies will dominate then, any more than scientists in 1900 could have anticipated semiconductors, superconductors, computers, air travel, automobiles, smartphones, nanotechnology, GMOs, etc. It's a mistake of Malthusian proportions to think we now know enough to forecast that a future advanced technological society, which we can't even imagine, is doomed unless we stop using fossil fuels now.
sorry but this comment makes no sense. I can see that you're smart, but did you watch the video? if you want to make the case that continuing the use of fossil fuels WON'T cause climate catastrophe, please prove it. you won't have any luck finding that evidence from fossil fuel companies either, since all the big ones agree climate change is real and that it's caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Chevron's own scientists even modeled climate change in the 1980s, leading them to fund a misinformation campaign to deceive the public, much like cigarette manufacturers did starting in the 50s. it's all documented in the book, "Merchants of Doubt."
"An extinction-level asteroid impact is not just plausible, but it has happened many times and is thus a calculable risk. What limit does the "precautionary principle" place on efforts to prevent this?" A starting cost of £118 million for phase 1. www.theguardian.com/science/2020/sep/17/european-space-agency-awards-asteroid-mission-german-firm
This is a very good tutorial. Easy to understand and can add knowledge to learning activities. Thank you for your knowledge and nice to meet you
I just hope we arent behind the curve. I just really understood the precautionary principal and I'm a college graduate.
I have a debate about precautionary principle. I just watched your video and it’s very helpful
🙏🙏🙏
Your animation is outstanding and I understood.... thank you so much for clearing my doubts 👏❤️
your animation is so good Ma'am can you please tell me software se do you use for this amazing animation
thank you for the education
👍
good.
Good.
There will come a time when all deniers will change their tune. Guaranteed.
❤
read any paper on geoengineering and it say's the outcome can be worst then before and onece started they can't stop and if they would it start a world wide catastrophe
An extinction-level asteroid impact is not just plausible, but it has happened many times and is thus a calculable risk. What limit does the "precautionary principle" place on efforts to prevent this? None.
The effect of ending fossil fuel use is also calculable. We can calculate the probability that human misery will only deepen as human progress is throttled, and we return to pre-industrial subsistence agriculture. Keep in mind that solar panels and wind turbines were invented in the 19th century but were only a curiosity since they were economically infeasible even then. Without cheap energy and petrochemicals from fossil fuels, the prospect of building massive quantities of them now would be ludicrous, as it was then.
Population biologists predict that our numbers will likely not exceed 10 billion, but only if the current rate of development is allowed to continue. This will spread the prosperity that has proven to be the most reliable form of birth control. If we instead return to pre-industrial squalor, only famine, disease, and human misery will limit population growth, just as Malthus predicted. The human species will likely survive, but we will have squandered the golden opportunity to use, and thus advance beyond, fossil fuels. Our technology sits atop an infrastructure pyramid whose foundation is the cheap energy and the fertilizers and petrochemicals that fossil fuels make possible. Strip that away and civilization crumbles.
The foolish mistake Malthus made in the 18th century with his predictions of doom, was that he assumed all invention and innovation was done, and that technology would be forever static. Ehrlich made the same mistake in the 1970s with The Population Bomb.
We have only been making significant use of fossil fuels for about a century, so we have no justification in assuming that we will still rely on them a century from now. We can't know what technologies will dominate then, any more than scientists in 1900 could have anticipated semiconductors, superconductors, computers, air travel, automobiles, smartphones, nanotechnology, GMOs, etc. It's a mistake of Malthusian proportions to think we now know enough to forecast that a future advanced technological society, which we can't even imagine, is doomed unless we stop using fossil fuels now.
I did. Thanks.
sorry but this comment makes no sense. I can see that you're smart, but did you watch the video? if you want to make the case that continuing the use of fossil fuels WON'T cause climate catastrophe, please prove it. you won't have any luck finding that evidence from fossil fuel companies either, since all the big ones agree climate change is real and that it's caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Chevron's own scientists even modeled climate change in the 1980s, leading them to fund a misinformation campaign to deceive the public, much like cigarette manufacturers did starting in the 50s. it's all documented in the book, "Merchants of Doubt."
"An extinction-level asteroid impact is not just plausible, but it has happened many times and is thus a calculable risk. What limit does the "precautionary principle" place on efforts to prevent this?"
A starting cost of £118 million for phase 1. www.theguardian.com/science/2020/sep/17/european-space-agency-awards-asteroid-mission-german-firm
Well... climate escatology is more like a giant space-hamster.
Their preachings has been proved wrong soooo many times.
Give examples and sources please.
Eww, I have NO respect for pecautionary principle! This scheme has been used for centuries and now it's legit and brave? Lool