4 ms·

Can't the reverse also be a problem? If you must have definitive proof that climate change directly caused an individual problem, then climate change will neve

Can't the reverse also be a problem? If you must have definitive proof that climate change directly caused an individual problem, then climate change will never meet that criteria until things are so bad that it is obvious and too late to do anything about it.

logicalmonster 4y ago
> Can't the reverse also be a problem? Of course. But if you have the crowd who fly around on private jets to environmental conferences telling the proles that they need to quit eating meat, eat the bugs, live in the pod, and sacrifice more to solve a problem, I think it's fair to ask that the case be very strongly made without appealing to Science (TM) and trying to browbeat people into submission. And I'm not seeing it. I've lived long enough to see past climate predictions being total bunk: a new ice age was one worry, global warming, acid rain devastating cities, etc. Now we're just hammered with "climate change" and many real and far more provable environmental problems like the health of the oceans are comparatively ignored. As far as likelihood goes, I don't think I have all of the answers, but the number of ifs involved in the entire chain of climate change dogma makes the worst case scenario seem very unlikely to me. If the climate is changing, is it caused by man? There are some who point out things like natural sun changes might be the bigger issue involved with changing climate and that the world has constantly gone through hot/cold cycles. If it's caused by man, is it actually inevitably going to cause overall harm? A changing climate might be a bad thing in certain areas, but large areas of the world could also become more livable and lead to more vegetation and farming elsewhere, and a net plant increase on the planet. If it's causing harm, can we resolve it? Assuming that the climate is changing and it's caused by man, and it causes harm, can we do anything to solve it? I'm not sure. There are some activists who suggest that even if we quit all CO2 emissions today, the planet is already inevitably beyond doomed. If we can resolve it, is the benefit greater than the cost? Most of us alive have had the pleasure of living in relatively stable and prosperous situations compared to all of human history. Doing what some climate activists want to do like eliminate certain kinds of energy usage very quickly may dramatically harm the lives of many more people than might be saved from the natural disasters/weather. The amount of human misery that can be caused by bad economic policies might far outweigh any problems caused by climate change. The only thing I'd say in conclusion is whether or not climate change is real, nuclear energy is the only workable answer that all sides should be able to agree on. Regardless of your stance on the climate, everybody recognizes that cheap energy that doesn't pollute and that can power industry is a big win. Until battery technology makes several quantum leaps in efficiency, nuclear energy is the only possible answer to climate change as well the needs of humanity.
- DoctorOW 4y ago
  > Of course. But if you have the crowd who fly around on private jets to environmental conferences telling the proles that they need to quit eating meat, eat the bugs, live in the pod, and sacrifice more to solve a problem, I think it's fair to ask that the case be very strongly made without appealing to Science (TM) and trying to browbeat people into submission. I don't understand your problem with using scientific arguments. I think that you reject evidence conceptually and are "not seeing" any climate change is a self-refuting argument if you're willing to think about it. Especially since anyone who is vocal about this crisis will say it's systemic and there are maybe less than 100 people who could, if they wanted to, dedicate their resources and solve this in our lifetime. The reason climate change is seemingly eternal and difficult to solve is because the biggest polluters aren't going to stop and we can't make them. Here's more info on the systemic issues if you're open to any data or new ideas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_justice
  - logicalmonster 4y ago
    > I don't understand your problem with using scientific arguments. The Scientific Method is unambiguously great. The modern Science (TM) is a political tool used to browbeat people into submission for money and power. I'm not trying to be insulting in any way, but my opinion is that people with your general worldview cannot see how there's a difference between those 2 things because Science (TM) strongly aligns with your worldview. > I think that you reject evidence conceptually and are "not seeing" any climate change is a self-refuting argument if you're willing to think about it. In the post you're responding to, I listed a set of conditions that all have to be true in order to make "climate change" an actual problem, caused by man, that can be fixed by human action, and whose solution is a win from a cost-benefit standpoint. There's not just 1 variable here that has to be weighed. Science qua science cannot advocate any action. Science is just a tool for understanding the natural world. Once you use science to understand the world as best as possible, it's human risk-management that actually allows people to decide on a course of action. Science does not and cannot make decisions for anybody or advocate any specific action. > The reason climate change is seemingly eternal and difficult to solve is because the biggest polluters aren't going to stop and we can't make them. Actually, you can probably make anybody do anything with enough force, but is it worth the cost? And by cost, I don't just mean money, I mean the second order effects in terms of human lives and misery. That's another one of my big questions. The economic calamity that might ensue by giving climate warriors carte blanche to do whatever they want to do might harm billions more lives than the worst possible outcome from climate change. We're starting to see what a relatively small increase in gas prices is doing to families on the bubble. If prices end up going higher, food will literally begin to be impossible to grow, process, and transport and it will not be feasible for many people to work. How many might starve? And that's just with a relatively small gas price increase without the real climate change crowd running the show. > Here's more info on the systemic issues if you're open to any data or new ideas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_justice Framing anything in terms of "climate justice" is horrifyingly bad from a persuasion standpoint. This kind of framing is preaching to your own choir here and is not persuasive at all. PS: I'd like to reiterate my following general statement that I think everybody can agree with. If you believe that climate change is a problem, nuclear is the only answer that solves it. If you don't believe that climate change is a problem, you should still want nuclear because it's clean and cheap energy that is capable of powering all human activity and industry. This is a win-win that anybody, regardless of worldview, should be able to get behind.

logicalmonster 4y ago

> Can't the reverse also be a problem? Of course. But if you have the crowd who fly around on private jets to environmental conferences telling the proles that they need to quit eating meat, eat the bugs, live in the pod, and sacrifice more to solve a problem, I think it's fair to ask that the case be very strongly made without appealing to Science (TM) and trying to browbeat people into submission. And I'm not seeing it. I've lived long enough to see past climate predictions being total bunk: a new ice age was one worry, global warming, acid rain devastating cities, etc. Now we're just hammered with "climate change" and many real and far more provable environmental problems like the health of the oceans are comparatively ignored. As far as likelihood goes, I don't think I have all of the answers, but the number of ifs involved in the entire chain of climate change dogma makes the worst case scenario seem very unlikely to me. If the climate is changing, is it caused by man? There are some who point out things like natural sun changes might be the bigger issue involved with changing climate and that the world has constantly gone through hot/cold cycles. If it's caused by man, is it actually inevitably going to cause overall harm? A changing climate might be a bad thing in certain areas, but large areas of the world could also become more livable and lead to more vegetation and farming elsewhere, and a net plant increase on the planet. If it's causing harm, can we resolve it? Assuming that the climate is changing and it's caused by man, and it causes harm, can we do anything to solve it? I'm not sure. There are some activists who suggest that even if we quit all CO2 emissions today, the planet is already inevitably beyond doomed. If we can resolve it, is the benefit greater than the cost? Most of us alive have had the pleasure of living in relatively stable and prosperous situations compared to all of human history. Doing what some climate activists want to do like eliminate certain kinds of energy usage very quickly may dramatically harm the lives of many more people than might be saved from the natural disasters/weather. The amount of human misery that can be caused by bad economic policies might far outweigh any problems caused by climate change. The only thing I'd say in conclusion is whether or not climate change is real, nuclear energy is the only workable answer that all sides should be able to agree on. Regardless of your stance on the climate, everybody recognizes that cheap energy that doesn't pollute and that can power industry is a big win. Until battery technology makes several quantum leaps in efficiency, nuclear energy is the only possible answer to climate change as well the needs of humanity.

DoctorOW 4y ago
> Of course. But if you have the crowd who fly around on private jets to environmental conferences telling the proles that they need to quit eating meat, eat the bugs, live in the pod, and sacrifice more to solve a problem, I think it's fair to ask that the case be very strongly made without appealing to Science (TM) and trying to browbeat people into submission. I don't understand your problem with using scientific arguments. I think that you reject evidence conceptually and are "not seeing" any climate change is a self-refuting argument if you're willing to think about it. Especially since anyone who is vocal about this crisis will say it's systemic and there are maybe less than 100 people who could, if they wanted to, dedicate their resources and solve this in our lifetime. The reason climate change is seemingly eternal and difficult to solve is because the biggest polluters aren't going to stop and we can't make them. Here's more info on the systemic issues if you're open to any data or new ideas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_justice
- logicalmonster 4y ago
  > I don't understand your problem with using scientific arguments. The Scientific Method is unambiguously great. The modern Science (TM) is a political tool used to browbeat people into submission for money and power. I'm not trying to be insulting in any way, but my opinion is that people with your general worldview cannot see how there's a difference between those 2 things because Science (TM) strongly aligns with your worldview. > I think that you reject evidence conceptually and are "not seeing" any climate change is a self-refuting argument if you're willing to think about it. In the post you're responding to, I listed a set of conditions that all have to be true in order to make "climate change" an actual problem, caused by man, that can be fixed by human action, and whose solution is a win from a cost-benefit standpoint. There's not just 1 variable here that has to be weighed. Science qua science cannot advocate any action. Science is just a tool for understanding the natural world. Once you use science to understand the world as best as possible, it's human risk-management that actually allows people to decide on a course of action. Science does not and cannot make decisions for anybody or advocate any specific action. > The reason climate change is seemingly eternal and difficult to solve is because the biggest polluters aren't going to stop and we can't make them. Actually, you can probably make anybody do anything with enough force, but is it worth the cost? And by cost, I don't just mean money, I mean the second order effects in terms of human lives and misery. That's another one of my big questions. The economic calamity that might ensue by giving climate warriors carte blanche to do whatever they want to do might harm billions more lives than the worst possible outcome from climate change. We're starting to see what a relatively small increase in gas prices is doing to families on the bubble. If prices end up going higher, food will literally begin to be impossible to grow, process, and transport and it will not be feasible for many people to work. How many might starve? And that's just with a relatively small gas price increase without the real climate change crowd running the show. > Here's more info on the systemic issues if you're open to any data or new ideas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_justice Framing anything in terms of "climate justice" is horrifyingly bad from a persuasion standpoint. This kind of framing is preaching to your own choir here and is not persuasive at all. PS: I'd like to reiterate my following general statement that I think everybody can agree with. If you believe that climate change is a problem, nuclear is the only answer that solves it. If you don't believe that climate change is a problem, you should still want nuclear because it's clean and cheap energy that is capable of powering all human activity and industry. This is a win-win that anybody, regardless of worldview, should be able to get behind.