Balance of nature: human and theological implications (Introduction)

by David Turell , Friday, February 14, 2025, 18:50 (20 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: The message could hardly be clearer: although we can’t know the extent or the timing of future disasters, we do know the damage which is already being done. It is therefore only common sense that we reduce and ultimately eliminate these dangers as quickly as pragmatically possible. That means finding alternatives to current practices that will not create social and economic havoc.

"Social and economic havoc" is a major consideration the green folks try to shove aside. Example: Wind farms are not a solution killing birds on land and fish in the oceans. The numbers are carefully hidden.

dhw: And that in turn requires money being poured into research. Only when viable alternatives to fossil fuels and current poisonous forms of transport and agriculture can be found will it be possible to make the necessary changes.

Exactly.

dhw: The USA, China and Europe should be among the powers that lead the way, and eventually there will have to be cooperation between the ca. 200 nations. Discussions on how big and exactly when are totally unproductive, As regards Trump, I wish he would use his power to focus as much on current global environmental realities and the need for international action as he does on American self-interest. The latter is politically necessary, but should not be at the expense of the former.[/i]

Become a Trump advisor. Have you noted the public response to the greens? Conservative far right leaning populist governments have appeared.

DAVID: I agree with the fact that future climate is an issue to study. It is very multifactorial and the current predictive models are not correct. I follow the climate studies very closely. No alarm is needed.

dhw: You have completely ignored every single argument with which you have previously agreed. I have summarized the situation above. Please tell us what you disagree with.

No longer specifically ignored.