4 ms·

> Your "other option" means certain disaster, sooner. I see no evidence or reason to believe this at all, let alone with such extreme certitude. Shouldn't we t

> Your "other option" means certain disaster, sooner. I see no evidence or reason to believe this at all, let alone with such extreme certitude. Shouldn't we try harder to have a realistic scientific assessment? > We already know what to do But it's not happening and it isn't going to happen. That means your plan doesn't work. That means that, however well-intentioned you are, your plan is do nothing and fry the planet.

ncmncm 4y ago
It is happening, just not fast enough. Renewables are already cheaper than anything else. Building out more saves money. Only social inertia slows it. Distraction adds to inertia. Doing things to increase inertia makes things worse. Distracting people with pies in skies makes things worse. The planet fries, regardless, if CO2 is not brought down. Fooling around with anything that does not brings catastrophe nearer.
- civilized 4y ago
  > Only social inertia slows it. Distraction adds to inertia. I don't buy the armchair social psychology here. People think they are much, much better at predicting how the population will react to things than they actually are. This led to a lot of terrible decisions during the pandemic, like telling people masks don't work on the baseless folk theory that wearing masks would cause people to take more risks. That theory, by the way, was very similar to the one you're advancing with such certitude. We are moving too slowly to avert potentially catastrophic climate change. The armchair theory that, somehow, not buying more time with geoengineering will somehow... I don't know, somehow cause people to be more focused and move faster?... is barely believable even as a folk theory, but on top of that, is very clearly not coming to pass. Look around at what's happening in the world. We need to get real.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Getting real means displacing CO2 production. Anything that fails to displace CO2 production is, at best, wankage. Anything that steals capital from displacing CO2 production is much worse.
    - civilized 4y ago
      You're just layering folk theory upon folk theory with baseless, utter confidence. This is not the sort of problem we can just bluff our way through with gut feelings. We need to consider the options in a comprehensive, systematic, thoughtful, scientific fashion.
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        A comprehensive, systematic, thoughtful, scientific fashion that displaces CO2-emitting processes. Fail to displace CO2 emission, and it is all just so much hot air.
        civilized 4y ago
        Repeated baseless assertion is an irresponsible way to deal with a complex global crisis. The planet is not a morality play where we simply demand that people be virtuous and things work out. We have to actually think things through and come up with a realistic plan considering the realities on the ground and human nature.
        worik 4y ago
        > Repeated baseless assertion is an irresponsible way to deal with a complex global crisis. Yes. Listen to yourself. We need to stop pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. That will take a huge effort. Distracting from that effort makes things worse.
        civilized 4y ago
        > Distracting from that effort makes things worse. I see no evidence or reason to believe that an effort to reduce solar irradiance distracts from the control of greenhouse gases on a civilizational scale. Civilizations are always doing tons of different things. Most of those things aren't competing with one another for people or resources. They're just happening simultaneously. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. And don't you want to know how difficult this will be before immediately shutting it down? Isn't that a critical consideration?
yetanother12345 4y ago
> But it's not happening ... Perhaps not in the US, but other parts of the world is full speed on the renewables track
- civilized 4y ago
  I refer you once again to the emissions chart. It's nice that renewables are coming online but that curve is not bending downward.
  - yetanother12345 4y ago
    Oh, so let me try to follow your lead and lets imagine that it's not going to bend anytime soon... How about we start thinking in terms of big scale disaster preparation in stead of inventing pseudo solutions? In the past underground dwellings have been popular, I imagine these will be more resilient to heat... as for flooding, not so much... so how about we do some calculations on how to become less vulnerable to flooding, etc? Just saying... IMHO, it's very easy to jump the tech fetish bandwaggon but all the ingenious inventions likely may turn out to matter less than little when nature applies force...
    - civilized 4y ago
      So, just assuming without any evidence that the proposal is a "pseudo solution"?

ncmncm 4y ago

It is happening, just not fast enough. Renewables are already cheaper than anything else. Building out more saves money. Only social inertia slows it. Distraction adds to inertia. Doing things to increase inertia makes things worse. Distracting people with pies in skies makes things worse. The planet fries, regardless, if CO2 is not brought down. Fooling around with anything that does not brings catastrophe nearer.

civilized 4y ago
> Only social inertia slows it. Distraction adds to inertia. I don't buy the armchair social psychology here. People think they are much, much better at predicting how the population will react to things than they actually are. This led to a lot of terrible decisions during the pandemic, like telling people masks don't work on the baseless folk theory that wearing masks would cause people to take more risks. That theory, by the way, was very similar to the one you're advancing with such certitude. We are moving too slowly to avert potentially catastrophic climate change. The armchair theory that, somehow, not buying more time with geoengineering will somehow... I don't know, somehow cause people to be more focused and move faster?... is barely believable even as a folk theory, but on top of that, is very clearly not coming to pass. Look around at what's happening in the world. We need to get real.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Getting real means displacing CO2 production. Anything that fails to displace CO2 production is, at best, wankage. Anything that steals capital from displacing CO2 production is much worse.
  - civilized 4y ago
    You're just layering folk theory upon folk theory with baseless, utter confidence. This is not the sort of problem we can just bluff our way through with gut feelings. We need to consider the options in a comprehensive, systematic, thoughtful, scientific fashion.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      A comprehensive, systematic, thoughtful, scientific fashion that displaces CO2-emitting processes. Fail to displace CO2 emission, and it is all just so much hot air.
      - civilized 4y ago
        Repeated baseless assertion is an irresponsible way to deal with a complex global crisis. The planet is not a morality play where we simply demand that people be virtuous and things work out. We have to actually think things through and come up with a realistic plan considering the realities on the ground and human nature.
        worik 4y ago
        > Repeated baseless assertion is an irresponsible way to deal with a complex global crisis. Yes. Listen to yourself. We need to stop pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. That will take a huge effort. Distracting from that effort makes things worse.
        civilized 4y ago
        > Distracting from that effort makes things worse. I see no evidence or reason to believe that an effort to reduce solar irradiance distracts from the control of greenhouse gases on a civilizational scale. Civilizations are always doing tons of different things. Most of those things aren't competing with one another for people or resources. They're just happening simultaneously. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. And don't you want to know how difficult this will be before immediately shutting it down? Isn't that a critical consideration?

yetanother12345 4y ago

> But it's not happening ... Perhaps not in the US, but other parts of the world is full speed on the renewables track

civilized 4y ago
I refer you once again to the emissions chart. It's nice that renewables are coming online but that curve is not bending downward.
- yetanother12345 4y ago
  Oh, so let me try to follow your lead and lets imagine that it's not going to bend anytime soon... How about we start thinking in terms of big scale disaster preparation in stead of inventing pseudo solutions? In the past underground dwellings have been popular, I imagine these will be more resilient to heat... as for flooding, not so much... so how about we do some calculations on how to become less vulnerable to flooding, etc? Just saying... IMHO, it's very easy to jump the tech fetish bandwaggon but all the ingenious inventions likely may turn out to matter less than little when nature applies force...
  - civilized 4y ago
    So, just assuming without any evidence that the proposal is a "pseudo solution"?