4 ms·

Climate Science You’ve Never Heard Of

2 points by Gravityloss 5y ago

PaulHoule 5y ago
From a scientific and technical perspective it's easy to be optimistic. It's the political science part that makes me pessimistic.
- Gravityloss 5y ago
  I agree. But at least we should communicate the scientific and technical perspective correctly.
goatsneez 5y ago
That is a barrage of useless fluff, and then I go back to find out that really the M. Mann himself who produced it. New science on the block says: "Most importantly, it tells us that if humanity slashes emissions to zero, global temperatures will stop rising almost immediately." (...previously held belief of 30+ years is a thing of the past.) It is implied that this will put our "environment" into the state of ...? This is heralded as a fact carved in stone now upon which we are to rejoice and shed induced psychological climate anxiety to double down on politics and activism to " .. pressure governments and corporations to favor climate protection over climate destruction". (As if this false dichotomy's latter option is moral driver of the governments and corporations). Just make f.f. super expensive and price unreachable is the pill we are prescribed. Of cause, both of these claims are dubious assuming a metric which itself has little to do with climate stability, which is controlled solely by bio-sphere, or biota. It appears that there are parallel world in climate science: ecologists and climate-scientists. The latter hold a world-view-model that thermodynamics of the non-living matter stabilizes our climate, while ecologists have shown time and again that it is biology (and hence water cycle per-dominantly) that stabilizes climate. Sure, one advantage of the mechanical dumpster-like-world-view of climate-science that is the main-stream today is easily lends itself to the political policy manipulation with a single all-affecting-knob, which itself has just the right convenience to energy related domestic and foreign policies. However, in reality this is the actual problem of this world-view. The models and theories of climate stability not-taking into account biotic life (and those do not exists nearly on sufficient mathematically rigorous level) are false, and potentially dangerous if taken seriously by the governments. Science aside, what policies to enact then? Well, there are options but they are politically just impossible to implements because energy is a strategic resource and the very medium on which states/cultures exists. The only way, as history demonstrate to us, is to innovate ourselves under the profit motivation to a new future under the guarantee of freedom from government/bureaucratic choke-hold (which includes all subsidies, ideally).
- PaulHoule 5y ago
  At risk of sounding like an economist: energy is "strategic" or critical to society but it's hard to underestimate the power of markets to rapidly mediate a shift in technology such as the transition from landline to cellular phones, adoption of renewable energy, ... Certainly the state must put in penalties and incentives to make the transition, but let's take the 'static' out of 'statism' and fight the tendency of the political system to be captured by today's dominant industries.
  - goatsneez 5y ago
    My initial position (model) is that markets exists and can operate within a meta-process called a state (a defined territory dominated by a single military force). State has a physical dimension/extension, while government as an organization of abstract ideals does not (apart from humans as agents). I take this to be an important point in thinking about energy:availability-security-costs (I stress against that this is a model of reality). As you know, technological progress in the physical dimension of the problem, ie. industry in general, specifically energy industry (coupled with mining industry as they go hand in hand), is much more constrained, slower and a difficult problem compared to the "soft" (if you will) technologies such as internet, cell-phones, and such. At the same time industrialization and industrial processes are the wealth generators, and those ensure that a state will/can exists in a competing natural world. So, all this to say that markets to be "regulated/directed" by politicians are the solution is in fact the very disease/problem. It is a physical impossibility by the nature of state (as defined in this model). Therefore, it cannot work, and will not work as we have seen so far (which to some degree validates this rather simple model). Any attempt at trying to make it work would be very inefficient (which is why communism/totalitarianism is so resource inefficient and polluting -- and finally leads to dissolution of the state itself). Nor do I claim to have some enlightened answers to offer under this model. The truth of the matter is that people, we individually, are agents of action ultimately. We have to have a freedom from government intervention to pursue profit (here goes market economy advocacy), while the state itself will consume a lot of energy to enable this activity. Sure there is more to be addresses, but I hope I made my opinion clear that I do not see politics interfering with markets being the answer in the long term for the 3-energy-trifacta availability-security-costs].

2 points by Gravityloss 5y ago

From a scientific and technical perspective it's easy to be optimistic. It's the political science part that makes me pessimistic.

Gravityloss 5y ago
I agree. But at least we should communicate the scientific and technical perspective correctly.

goatsneez 5y ago

That is a barrage of useless fluff, and then I go back to find out that really the M. Mann himself who produced it. New science on the block says: "Most importantly, it tells us that if humanity slashes emissions to zero, global temperatures will stop rising almost immediately." (...previously held belief of 30+ years is a thing of the past.) It is implied that this will put our "environment" into the state of ...? This is heralded as a fact carved in stone now upon which we are to rejoice and shed induced psychological climate anxiety to double down on politics and activism to " .. pressure governments and corporations to favor climate protection over climate destruction". (As if this false dichotomy's latter option is moral driver of the governments and corporations). Just make f.f. super expensive and price unreachable is the pill we are prescribed. Of cause, both of these claims are dubious assuming a metric which itself has little to do with climate stability, which is controlled solely by bio-sphere, or biota. It appears that there are parallel world in climate science: ecologists and climate-scientists. The latter hold a world-view-model that thermodynamics of the non-living matter stabilizes our climate, while ecologists have shown time and again that it is biology (and hence water cycle per-dominantly) that stabilizes climate. Sure, one advantage of the mechanical dumpster-like-world-view of climate-science that is the main-stream today is easily lends itself to the political policy manipulation with a single all-affecting-knob, which itself has just the right convenience to energy related domestic and foreign policies. However, in reality this is the actual problem of this world-view. The models and theories of climate stability not-taking into account biotic life (and those do not exists nearly on sufficient mathematically rigorous level) are false, and potentially dangerous if taken seriously by the governments. Science aside, what policies to enact then? Well, there are options but they are politically just impossible to implements because energy is a strategic resource and the very medium on which states/cultures exists. The only way, as history demonstrate to us, is to innovate ourselves under the profit motivation to a new future under the guarantee of freedom from government/bureaucratic choke-hold (which includes all subsidies, ideally).

PaulHoule 5y ago
At risk of sounding like an economist: energy is "strategic" or critical to society but it's hard to underestimate the power of markets to rapidly mediate a shift in technology such as the transition from landline to cellular phones, adoption of renewable energy, ... Certainly the state must put in penalties and incentives to make the transition, but let's take the 'static' out of 'statism' and fight the tendency of the political system to be captured by today's dominant industries.
- goatsneez 5y ago
  My initial position (model) is that markets exists and can operate within a meta-process called a state (a defined territory dominated by a single military force). State has a physical dimension/extension, while government as an organization of abstract ideals does not (apart from humans as agents). I take this to be an important point in thinking about energy:availability-security-costs (I stress against that this is a model of reality). As you know, technological progress in the physical dimension of the problem, ie. industry in general, specifically energy industry (coupled with mining industry as they go hand in hand), is much more constrained, slower and a difficult problem compared to the "soft" (if you will) technologies such as internet, cell-phones, and such. At the same time industrialization and industrial processes are the wealth generators, and those ensure that a state will/can exists in a competing natural world. So, all this to say that markets to be "regulated/directed" by politicians are the solution is in fact the very disease/problem. It is a physical impossibility by the nature of state (as defined in this model). Therefore, it cannot work, and will not work as we have seen so far (which to some degree validates this rather simple model). Any attempt at trying to make it work would be very inefficient (which is why communism/totalitarianism is so resource inefficient and polluting -- and finally leads to dissolution of the state itself). Nor do I claim to have some enlightened answers to offer under this model. The truth of the matter is that people, we individually, are agents of action ultimately. We have to have a freedom from government intervention to pursue profit (here goes market economy advocacy), while the state itself will consume a lot of energy to enable this activity. Sure there is more to be addresses, but I hope I made my opinion clear that I do not see politics interfering with markets being the answer in the long term for the 3-energy-trifacta availability-security-costs].