View Single Post
      09-12-2019, 03:09 PM   #30
Major General
MKSixer's Avatar

Drives: 2015 BMW i8, E63 M6, 328d
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Southeast United States

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2016 M4 GTS (Allotted)  [0.00]
2013 BMW 328d  [0.00]
2007 BMW M6  [5.00]
2015 BMW i8  [5.00]
Originally Posted by cjb762 View Post
I think you are confusing actual junk science (e.g. tobacco companies paying labs to produce results that show smoking is good for you), with the fact that real science is constantly questioning and testing it's understanding of the world, which sometimes leads to a very different understanding based on newly discovered evidence.

So, for example, I think it is highly likely that scientists' understanding of the the world's fossil resources is significantly more refined and accurate than it was when you were in grade school - and therefore more likely to be correct.

As for betting my life, we really all bet our lives every day on scientific understandings in some ways. When you get on a plane, when you take medicine, when you submit yourself to a surgical procedure, etc. If I had to bet my life though, I would bet it on estimates grounded in scientific knowledge, rather than opinions grounded in ignorance, or superstition. (that is not a personal comment on anything you are saying)

I do believe that it is beyond question that fossil fuels are a finite resource, and that one day - if their use continues as it is - they will be gone, or at least reduced to a point that they aren't viable as an energy source. I also believe that kicking the can down the road with regard to developing new energy sources is not a rational thing to do.
Not at all.

I work in drug development. The scientific rigor necessary to prove a molecule or compound to be first, not deadly, then possibly efficacious, lastly dose responsive (highly simplified) is a far cry from we are going to be out of fossil fuels by X-date. In fact, they aren't even in the same ballpark. Betting your life on surgery of the non-experimental variety, taking a marketed drug after the first year of commercialization, or the extremely simple physics of a plane flying aren't even real bets because most of the failures in all of the aforementioned are anomalies at this point.

Here is my overall problem with anyone, scientist or layman, making the type of statement in question and worse, deriving policy from said statements: The earth is an extremely complex system. The most complex we interact with, as a species, on a daily basis. To say that we can make a hard pronouncement with any certainty of anything occurring with regard to the climate, the supply of oil, the supply of fresh water or anything that happens without regard to our influence is specious at best.

Should we work to preserve the environment and be good stewards of our planet, absolutely. Should we scare everyone into a panic and/or create knee-jerk policies based on the "science" that they are shoveling into the collective consciousness, nope.

Several actors have played James Bond, Sean Connery IS James Bond...

Lewi6, First of His Name, Destroyer of Careers, Master of Pole Positions, 6X WDC, Master of All Tracks, Scorer of Maximum Points, Whisperer of Tires, Minimizer of Fuel Utilization, Maximizer of Consistency in Finishing. Look Upon Him With DRED.