Registered On: December 24, 2013
Those are very weak arguments, Gurnelista. Claiming Koonin can’t be trusted because he worked at BP is a political argument and has absolutely nothing to do with his expertise, credentials and ability to offer objective views. If you’re going to criticise the guy, fine, but do so on the basis of the arguments he makes. As for Koonin’s critics, well, no surprises there. Just rubbish the guy.
As for taking steps if there’s a reasonable chance something bad is going to happen, nobody is arguing those steps shouldn’t be taken. It’s the scale and speed at which they’re being taken that is the issue. The world is not facing catastrophe at anything close to the claims being made and the current ‘solutions’ will actually make little difference. It’s little more than virtue signalling.
As for your 97% plane analogy it’s pure nonsense and has zero to do with risk. You’re playing a classic trick of claiming the 97% represents probability, which it doesn’t. For your analogy to make any sense you’d have to ask why ANY aeronautical engineer would claim a plane was safe to fly if there was a 97% probability of it crashing; and of course not a single person would ever do so, let alone an aeronautical engineer.