(May 11, 2012 at 4:56 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Why we would expect casualties at all eludes me. Are we assuming that people will do terribly stupid shit? Not that this isn't a valid assumption, don't get me wrong. But at that point, it's the stupid shit people do (and not climatapocalypse) that offed them.
As an example. Lets say that we have conclusive evidence that ACC will turn New York into a reliable target of killer waves and flooding (which would indeed take some pretty heavy shit to enable). Perhaps people should leave (or make plans to circumvent this issue). If not, it isn't ACC but ignorant and stubborn refusal to respond to a changing environment (or any environment at all) that would lead to casualties. You'd have a hard time convincing me that people such as this would be able to avoid swallowing large crayons.
It doesn't matter if resources, human and material, is lost due to stupidity or whatever. So long as it is lost, it is casaulty.
It also doesn't matter if the immediate cause is suicide, stupidity or what ever. So long as one scenario sees more resource lost for whatever reason than the other scenario, selecting scenario one implies a casulaty equal to the additional amount lost compare to scenario two.
If, for sake of argument, chosing ACC scneario cause 1 million more poeple to die of stupidity than chooseing the other scenario, there is no need to quibble with whether the proximal cause is ACC otr stupidity. ACC will lead to a million casualty.
