3 ms·

Well, look at it from an odds perspective. What are the odds it's just you two who are right when the whole world is wrong? What are the odds that it does more

by Aachen 4y ago

Well, look at it from an odds perspective. What are the odds it's just you two who are right when the whole world is wrong? What are the odds that it does more harm to try to reduce emissions to keep a measurable quantity of gas in the atmosphere stable rather than raising it? Could keeping the atmosphere stable do more harm than if we all just assume it'll be fine and carry on filling it up with combustion products? If I were a betting man, I'd not be gambling that changing the atmosphere with more greenhouse gasses is going to give us the better outcome. Or that, even if we're wrong, changing cars to electric wouldn't still be a positive because you'll reduce lung cancer cases. I really don't get the angle here that everyone is nuts except you two. Edit: I should add that it's okay to change opinion! I also feel that pressure to stay consistent with my opinions and beliefs (in various situations, and I'm sure there's a psychology word for it), but I'm trying to tell myself that's silly. New information leads to new insights, and that might mean voting opposite in booths or changing the requirements when you buy a new car or so.

robomartin 4y ago
What were the odds that Galileo was right and the entire world was wrong? You are falling for exactly the issue I highlighted. Both sides if this matter (deniers and zealots) have become cults. So now because “everyone says X” it is true. One side believes X and the other Y. Each side has people pumping the resonant messages for profit, be it political or financial. And nobody bothers to question them at all. In fact, if you dare question any of it (on either side) you have to be willing to accept being attacked at different levels. Precisely the kind of society we all want to live in. Right? She weighs as much as a duck! Burn the witch! What’s sad is that reality is very easy to see —so long as a person is willing to leave cult thinking behind. Most don’t. It’s easier to get behind what a celebrity or politician says you should believe than to exercise critical thinking.
- Aachen 4y ago
  You're ignoring half my message. Certainly we need critical assessments, but whether the sun is centric or the earth (afaik the point galileo contested) isn't going to be life or death for millions. We don't need to gamble on that. We can gamble on cleaner cars being better for us with good confidence. This is the second half of the first paragraph of my previous message: > What are the odds that it does more harm to try to reduce emissions to keep a measurable quantity of gas in the atmosphere stable rather than raising it? Could keeping the atmosphere stable do more harm than if we all just assume it'll be fine and carry on filling it up with combustion products?
robomartin 4y ago
BTW, we have known, since at least 2014, that, even if we deploy the most optimal forms of renewable energy at a planetary scale, it will not solve the problem. If we were able to accomplish such a feat, not only would atmospheric CO2 levels not drop, they would continue to rise. There are research papers written about this. I’m on my phone now, so I can’t reach for my files. I have written about this extensively on HN. If interested, I am sure the posts can be found.
- Aachen 4y ago
  That much is obvious if you only factor in clean energy without GHG capture (note: capture is also being worked on), but a very slow rise is a whole different climate outcome (and gives us time to figure the rest out for centuries) than the current rise that has a measurable impact well within our lifetime. Put another way, you're gonna die anyhow but most people prefer not to invite it while they can still live healthily. An argument about not being able to stop it completely when we can postpone the worst part by how many centuries (even without already existing capture technology) sounds very weird to me.

by Aachen 4y ago

robomartin 4y ago

What were the odds that Galileo was right and the entire world was wrong? You are falling for exactly the issue I highlighted. Both sides if this matter (deniers and zealots) have become cults. So now because “everyone says X” it is true. One side believes X and the other Y. Each side has people pumping the resonant messages for profit, be it political or financial. And nobody bothers to question them at all. In fact, if you dare question any of it (on either side) you have to be willing to accept being attacked at different levels. Precisely the kind of society we all want to live in. Right? She weighs as much as a duck! Burn the witch! What’s sad is that reality is very easy to see —so long as a person is willing to leave cult thinking behind. Most don’t. It’s easier to get behind what a celebrity or politician says you should believe than to exercise critical thinking.

Aachen 4y ago
You're ignoring half my message. Certainly we need critical assessments, but whether the sun is centric or the earth (afaik the point galileo contested) isn't going to be life or death for millions. We don't need to gamble on that. We can gamble on cleaner cars being better for us with good confidence. This is the second half of the first paragraph of my previous message: > What are the odds that it does more harm to try to reduce emissions to keep a measurable quantity of gas in the atmosphere stable rather than raising it? Could keeping the atmosphere stable do more harm than if we all just assume it'll be fine and carry on filling it up with combustion products?

robomartin 4y ago

BTW, we have known, since at least 2014, that, even if we deploy the most optimal forms of renewable energy at a planetary scale, it will not solve the problem. If we were able to accomplish such a feat, not only would atmospheric CO2 levels not drop, they would continue to rise. There are research papers written about this. I’m on my phone now, so I can’t reach for my files. I have written about this extensively on HN. If interested, I am sure the posts can be found.

Aachen 4y ago
That much is obvious if you only factor in clean energy without GHG capture (note: capture is also being worked on), but a very slow rise is a whole different climate outcome (and gives us time to figure the rest out for centuries) than the current rise that has a measurable impact well within our lifetime. Put another way, you're gonna die anyhow but most people prefer not to invite it while they can still live healthily. An argument about not being able to stop it completely when we can postpone the worst part by how many centuries (even without already existing capture technology) sounds very weird to me.