5 ms·

Not really. How does that seatbelt work? This is the problem, you dont know.

yongjik 8y ago
So let me rephrase: you're saying that increasing carbon tax (for example) is a very dangerous policy because we don't exactly know how it would work out, but at the same time you are confident that our civilization will figure out solution to widespread crop failure, raising sea level, ocean acidification, (possibly) increased amount of superstorms, and a hundred million refugees spread across the world? Of course all mega-large-scale problems look like achievable goals, as long as you don't pay too much attention on who's gonna pay for all that ...
- ThomPete 8y ago
  With what? Where have I said anything about carbon tax or that it's dangerous? That's not what I am saying at all.
  - BLKNSLVR 8y ago
    That's the implication inherent in your commentary. To me (and possibly most people downvoting your comments), it sounds as if you're saying that we should deal with the symptoms and not the cause because we've seen symptoms like this before so I assume we can deal with it. To reduce my position to a couple of cliches: A stitch in time saves nine An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      I am saying that neither you nor anyone else has given a single example of something we know will happen and can't deal with today. Not a single example. What we see on the other hand is plenty of political attempts to try and force specific technologies in which aren't even close to being able to provide enough energy Solar and Wind being the most famous here. They are going to be great as extensions but we are not going to live in a world where they provide the majority of the energy and thus they aren't fundamental solutions to the problem they are distractions and they aren't even that green. Thats a good example of what happens when we try and solve a problem which we don't even know will show up and if it does in a 100 years form now. The difference in cost between solving a problem with technology and methods 100 years from now should be pretty obviously huge and thus it make no sense when we can't even point to a specific problem but just speculate about it. That's what absurd here.
      - BLKNSLVR 8y ago
        Scientific modelling has given plenty of examples, many of which have been mentioned here and you've dismissed them out of hand because, in your opinion, 'modelling' is apparently unscientific. What other method does humanity have of estimating future effects? If you don't accept the modelling scenarios then you won't accept anything. Continually asking for something that is impossible to provide is what's absurd.
        ThomPete 8y ago
        Computer models have been giving plenty of examples of all sorts of outcomes. It sounds like you don't know how computer modeling or science works. It's not what I think it's a reality.
        BLKNSLVR 8y ago
        I think various qualified folks might have something to say about that. Yes, modelling gives plenty of varying outcomes, that's what it's meant to do. Conclusions aren't drawn on single instances. They're drawn from running many models with varying input assumptions and conditions, and then seeing what the most likely outcomes are. There will be some outcomes that fall within the "nothing to worry about" range, but they seem to be very low percentage likelihood. Not zero, but highly unlikely. Isn't that how computer modelling and the scientific method work?
        ThomPete 8y ago
        I am qualified enough for that but if you don't believe me then you are more than welcome to educate yourself on the subject[1]. Climate computer models create a spread of outcomes each of them based on various parameters. None of them are conclusions they are all potential outcomes. The IPCC doesn't not just conclude one outcome they provide the spectrum of potential outcomes some of these outcomes have us come out just fine, others are catastrophic but none of them are conclusions. The outcomes that are "nothing to worry about" are not more unlikely than the "the world is falling apart" outcomes and that's the point I am trying to make. It's not rational nor sensible to prematurely solve problems that you don't know are actually going to be problems by introducing inferior and unrealiable solutions like wind and solar "just in case" especially not when those "solutions" are creating all sorts of other problems such as burning of coal when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing. The irony of all this is exactly that by focusing on wind and solar i.e. inferior energy sources that will never be able to provide enough energy for the worlds growing demands we are basically ending up burning more coal and fossil fuels at the same time as the wind and solar not being clean energy sources at all. Not as bad as burning coal but still not really that environmentally friendly and hard to maintain. But the world want's to be fooled. [1] I took the most pro climate models article I know of. Now add to this that these models are trying to look 50 to 100 years into the future and you realize just how shaky ground we are one with these models. Again what we can say scientifically and demonstrate is a fraction of what we speculate. https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-how-do-climate-models-work https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-how-do-climate-models-work

So let me rephrase: you're saying that increasing carbon tax (for example) is a very dangerous policy because we don't exactly know how it would work out, but at the same time you are confident that our civilization will figure out solution to widespread crop failure, raising sea level, ocean acidification, (possibly) increased amount of superstorms, and a hundred million refugees spread across the world? Of course all mega-large-scale problems look like achievable goals, as long as you don't pay too much attention on who's gonna pay for all that ...

ThomPete 8y ago
With what? Where have I said anything about carbon tax or that it's dangerous? That's not what I am saying at all.
- BLKNSLVR 8y ago
  That's the implication inherent in your commentary. To me (and possibly most people downvoting your comments), it sounds as if you're saying that we should deal with the symptoms and not the cause because we've seen symptoms like this before so I assume we can deal with it. To reduce my position to a couple of cliches: A stitch in time saves nine An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    I am saying that neither you nor anyone else has given a single example of something we know will happen and can't deal with today. Not a single example. What we see on the other hand is plenty of political attempts to try and force specific technologies in which aren't even close to being able to provide enough energy Solar and Wind being the most famous here. They are going to be great as extensions but we are not going to live in a world where they provide the majority of the energy and thus they aren't fundamental solutions to the problem they are distractions and they aren't even that green. Thats a good example of what happens when we try and solve a problem which we don't even know will show up and if it does in a 100 years form now. The difference in cost between solving a problem with technology and methods 100 years from now should be pretty obviously huge and thus it make no sense when we can't even point to a specific problem but just speculate about it. That's what absurd here.
    - BLKNSLVR 8y ago
      Scientific modelling has given plenty of examples, many of which have been mentioned here and you've dismissed them out of hand because, in your opinion, 'modelling' is apparently unscientific. What other method does humanity have of estimating future effects? If you don't accept the modelling scenarios then you won't accept anything. Continually asking for something that is impossible to provide is what's absurd.
      - ThomPete 8y ago
        Computer models have been giving plenty of examples of all sorts of outcomes. It sounds like you don't know how computer modeling or science works. It's not what I think it's a reality.
        BLKNSLVR 8y ago
        I think various qualified folks might have something to say about that. Yes, modelling gives plenty of varying outcomes, that's what it's meant to do. Conclusions aren't drawn on single instances. They're drawn from running many models with varying input assumptions and conditions, and then seeing what the most likely outcomes are. There will be some outcomes that fall within the "nothing to worry about" range, but they seem to be very low percentage likelihood. Not zero, but highly unlikely. Isn't that how computer modelling and the scientific method work?
        ThomPete 8y ago
        I am qualified enough for that but if you don't believe me then you are more than welcome to educate yourself on the subject[1]. Climate computer models create a spread of outcomes each of them based on various parameters. None of them are conclusions they are all potential outcomes. The IPCC doesn't not just conclude one outcome they provide the spectrum of potential outcomes some of these outcomes have us come out just fine, others are catastrophic but none of them are conclusions. The outcomes that are "nothing to worry about" are not more unlikely than the "the world is falling apart" outcomes and that's the point I am trying to make. It's not rational nor sensible to prematurely solve problems that you don't know are actually going to be problems by introducing inferior and unrealiable solutions like wind and solar "just in case" especially not when those "solutions" are creating all sorts of other problems such as burning of coal when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing. The irony of all this is exactly that by focusing on wind and solar i.e. inferior energy sources that will never be able to provide enough energy for the worlds growing demands we are basically ending up burning more coal and fossil fuels at the same time as the wind and solar not being clean energy sources at all. Not as bad as burning coal but still not really that environmentally friendly and hard to maintain. But the world want's to be fooled. [1] I took the most pro climate models article I know of. Now add to this that these models are trying to look 50 to 100 years into the future and you realize just how shaky ground we are one with these models. Again what we can say scientifically and demonstrate is a fraction of what we speculate. https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-how-do-climate-models-work https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-how-do-climate-models-work