Re:Climate threats now dominate long-term risks, survey of g...
by ajross on Wednesday January 15, 2020 @06:44PM
(#22060134)
> Defaulting to unusual event->climate change [is] evidence that the academic institution is increasingly broken and driven by dogma.
That quote was from "Peter Giger, chief risk officer for the Zurich Insurance Group", not part of the "academic institution" in any way I can see.
It's also pretty cherry picked, as there is a ton of other evidence presented in that short article that you're choosing to ignore while you pick on bees.
So... tell me, what is your threshold for action? If bees, wild fires, worsening storms/floods/droughts, CO2 charts, temperature measurements, sea ice levels, etc.. don't meet your criteria for proof because they aren't certain enough, what possibly could be?
Broadly: how certain are you that your opinions are really well considered and not driven by "dogma"?
That quote was from "Peter Giger, chief risk officer for the Zurich Insurance Group", not part of the "academic institution" in any way I can see.
It's also pretty cherry picked, as there is a ton of other evidence presented in that short article that you're choosing to ignore while you pick on bees.
So... tell me, what is your threshold for action? If bees, wild fires, worsening storms/floods/droughts, CO2 charts, temperature measurements, sea ice levels, etc.. don't meet your criteria for proof because they aren't certain enough, what possibly could be?
Broadly: how certain are you that your opinions are really well considered and not driven by "dogma"?