4 ms·

>> It's interesting to me how much people are trained to reflex against this possibility. It's interesting to me how much people are trained to reflexively ign

>> It's interesting to me how much people are trained to reflex against this possibility. It's interesting to me how much people are trained to reflexively ignore the potential unknown side effects that can occour when messing with a complex system. Have you ever thought that perhaps it's people like you who have it wrong? Are you capable of predicting ALL the side effects of such an extreme intervention? Are you capable of reversing unwanted side effects like a global winter due to this intervation? How can you know if you even can reverse it IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE UNWANTED SIDE EFFECTS WILL EVENT BE?

FredPret 4y ago
We are intervening with the complex system by injecting gases into it already. When stopping the gas injections proved nearly inposs, trying a counter-intervention seems only logical.
- mandmandam 4y ago
  > stopping the gas injections proved nearly inposs Aka we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas :/ Seriously. To this day we're letting fossil fuel companies get away with literal murder. Acting like change is impossible is a view those companies actively promote. Don't fall for it.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - FredPret 4y ago
    Oh please, reducing emissions is super slow and painful and anyone could see that. Every car switches to electric -> this is happening, but it takes 5-10 years to phase out a car. If 100% of new car sales are electric, we’ll have to wait until 2030. But we’re not at 100% yet. So we’ll probably only get there around 2040-2050. Every house switches to non-gas water heating and climate control -> this one takes even longer, 10-20 years to phase out. It’s probably easier to get to 100% clean new sales Every industrial process switches -> I don’t know enough to even speculate but this sounds like an even longer CAPEX cycle Every plane & ship switches -> we don’t have the tech for this figured out yet. Ships are probably one of the biggest things we should switch over ASAP. Every powerplant switches to nuclear/solar/wind/hydro: another multi-decade project. I want all of the above, if only for cleaner air for health reasons, and because I’m an engineer and nuclear + electric seems more elegant. But it will take a very long time.
    - mandmandam 4y ago
      We could have started the switch to cleaner power and better planning and quality trains and public transport etc. forty years ago, but we were knowingly lied to. Fossil fuel companies knew about climate change and deliberately spent decades obfuscating the issue and warping discourse. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about- https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-cl https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-cl... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97... https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62225696 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62225696
      - FredPret 4y ago
        Well OK, but now that we are where we are, we have to take the most rational next step. I’m not poking myself in the eye to get back at the oil companies.
    - treeman79 4y ago
      Power plants need to come first. Make electric so cheap that electric cars are a no brainer. Not California nonsense of electric shortages while demanding everyone uses electricity.
stereolambda 4y ago
"People like me" want research into the methods and don't call for not reducing the emissions. Both of this I explicitly said and both are largely ignored by people who are responding. As to the main point, as sibling has said, at this point regardless of what we do the climate will be anthropogenic (unless you believe people who say we don't influence it much). There is no return to being naive and innocent about it. The notion that there is some privileged way to act "in harmony with nature" is fictitious and purely human cultural psychology. The current mainstream solutions are also based on thinking that we understand some things and can predict what would happen if we do X or Y. If I wanted to be cheeky I would say we know very well now how to heat the atmosphere if need be, but actually I defer to climatology research and modeling to resolve any of this.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  > People can suspect that if the activists are so choosy about the methods, this cannot be that serious and this is not how truly desperate people act. This is a standard climate denier talking point. It doesn't make any sense unless you believe in a massive conspiracy on the topic. Yet, ironically, you seem appalled that anyone might doubt your noble motives for attacking the people who would prefer the widely accepted and known solutions to climate change be used first.
  - stereolambda 4y ago
    First, I related this as a perception problem for random members of the public who cannot be expected to go deep into the science of the problem. Second, no conspiracy would be needed, just hypocrisy of individuals. If someone tells you you'll go blind if you rub your privates, it doesn't necessarily mean they truly believe that, they may just want to influence your behavior by scaring you. It could be the case (or might seem so) with some climate activists, who predicate action on also realizing their social projects that might even be noble in themselves. This has nothing to do with legitimacy of the whole climate issue. My initial comment probably appears harsh because I was surprised by the fairly uniform tone of comments back then. I'm not appalled by anything, I know one can expect no quarter in this kind of hot button discussions :)
hackerlight 4y ago
Because you can implement a solution gradually and measure the gradient. The gradient strongly informs the final outcome. It's not foolproof, but it's better than what you're implying.
datadata 4y ago
Literally this is about research to figure out more about how to control these things. It isn't a plan to ignorantly execute the actual idea. If you are correct, the research should enable us to be informed and NOT build this out. You should be against not doing research.
DennisP 4y ago
We're already making massive interventions to a complex system. It's way too late to get all precious about not messing with it; now we have to muddle through and make our best guess about what set of interventions will do the least harm.

FredPret 4y ago

We are intervening with the complex system by injecting gases into it already. When stopping the gas injections proved nearly inposs, trying a counter-intervention seems only logical.

mandmandam 4y ago
> stopping the gas injections proved nearly inposs Aka we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas :/ Seriously. To this day we're letting fossil fuel companies get away with literal murder. Acting like change is impossible is a view those companies actively promote. Don't fall for it.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- FredPret 4y ago
  Oh please, reducing emissions is super slow and painful and anyone could see that. Every car switches to electric -> this is happening, but it takes 5-10 years to phase out a car. If 100% of new car sales are electric, we’ll have to wait until 2030. But we’re not at 100% yet. So we’ll probably only get there around 2040-2050. Every house switches to non-gas water heating and climate control -> this one takes even longer, 10-20 years to phase out. It’s probably easier to get to 100% clean new sales Every industrial process switches -> I don’t know enough to even speculate but this sounds like an even longer CAPEX cycle Every plane & ship switches -> we don’t have the tech for this figured out yet. Ships are probably one of the biggest things we should switch over ASAP. Every powerplant switches to nuclear/solar/wind/hydro: another multi-decade project. I want all of the above, if only for cleaner air for health reasons, and because I’m an engineer and nuclear + electric seems more elegant. But it will take a very long time.
  - mandmandam 4y ago
    We could have started the switch to cleaner power and better planning and quality trains and public transport etc. forty years ago, but we were knowingly lied to. Fossil fuel companies knew about climate change and deliberately spent decades obfuscating the issue and warping discourse. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about- https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-cl https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-cl... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97... https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62225696 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62225696
    - FredPret 4y ago
      Well OK, but now that we are where we are, we have to take the most rational next step. I’m not poking myself in the eye to get back at the oil companies.
  - treeman79 4y ago
    Power plants need to come first. Make electric so cheap that electric cars are a no brainer. Not California nonsense of electric shortages while demanding everyone uses electricity.

stereolambda 4y ago

"People like me" want research into the methods and don't call for not reducing the emissions. Both of this I explicitly said and both are largely ignored by people who are responding. As to the main point, as sibling has said, at this point regardless of what we do the climate will be anthropogenic (unless you believe people who say we don't influence it much). There is no return to being naive and innocent about it. The notion that there is some privileged way to act "in harmony with nature" is fictitious and purely human cultural psychology. The current mainstream solutions are also based on thinking that we understand some things and can predict what would happen if we do X or Y. If I wanted to be cheeky I would say we know very well now how to heat the atmosphere if need be, but actually I defer to climatology research and modeling to resolve any of this.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
> People can suspect that if the activists are so choosy about the methods, this cannot be that serious and this is not how truly desperate people act. This is a standard climate denier talking point. It doesn't make any sense unless you believe in a massive conspiracy on the topic. Yet, ironically, you seem appalled that anyone might doubt your noble motives for attacking the people who would prefer the widely accepted and known solutions to climate change be used first.
- stereolambda 4y ago
  First, I related this as a perception problem for random members of the public who cannot be expected to go deep into the science of the problem. Second, no conspiracy would be needed, just hypocrisy of individuals. If someone tells you you'll go blind if you rub your privates, it doesn't necessarily mean they truly believe that, they may just want to influence your behavior by scaring you. It could be the case (or might seem so) with some climate activists, who predicate action on also realizing their social projects that might even be noble in themselves. This has nothing to do with legitimacy of the whole climate issue. My initial comment probably appears harsh because I was surprised by the fairly uniform tone of comments back then. I'm not appalled by anything, I know one can expect no quarter in this kind of hot button discussions :)

hackerlight 4y ago

Because you can implement a solution gradually and measure the gradient. The gradient strongly informs the final outcome. It's not foolproof, but it's better than what you're implying.

datadata 4y ago

Literally this is about research to figure out more about how to control these things. It isn't a plan to ignorantly execute the actual idea. If you are correct, the research should enable us to be informed and NOT build this out. You should be against not doing research.

DennisP 4y ago

We're already making massive interventions to a complex system. It's way too late to get all precious about not messing with it; now we have to muddle through and make our best guess about what set of interventions will do the least harm.