(May 20, 2019 at 11:26 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:(May 20, 2019 at 11:12 am)Brian37 Wrote: No, you are still insistent on calling economists "experts"..... Well so what, ask one economist one thing they'll say it works, ask another economist the same thing they'll argue it doesn't and their view works. Calling economists "experts" assumes there is only one economic view, and that still ignores that our global economy is still intertwined.
And since we are intertwined oil matters on a global scale and as long as friend and foe fight over that, all the different economic views worldwide argued by the "experts" are really only arguing for control, and still not taking into account short term gains for one population wont change the long term destruction to our entire planet.
In the first place, nowhere in this thread have I referred to any economist, or to economists in general, as 'experts'. But I think you'll find that a majority of economists agree with you about the interconnectedness of the global economy.
Secondly, I think you may be overstating the case that short-term economic gains are necessarily bad (I don't hold that they are necessarily good, either), but they are sometimes necessary and can be achieved without the gloom and doom of planetary destruction.
Boru
Wow,
Holy crap. Scientists who say burning fossil fuels do not want the end of the world, they are merely stating a FACT that the world needs to take global warming seriously. If you want delusional gloom and doom, that would be what religion sells.
Humans are quite innovative and we are better off because of science. But that does not mean the global market is taking everything seriously as it should.
The global fossil fuel industry isn't taking global warming seriously enough, nor the auto industry. If you are a passenger in a car and see the driver is about to run a red light and get t-boned by semi, that is not "doom and gloom", shouting at them to hit the breaks is just the opposite, it is trying to avoid disaster.
