18 ms·

"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 pe

"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 :)
  - grive 4y ago
    > Second, no conspiracy would be needed, just hypocrisy of individuals. To quote your first sentence: > It's interesting to me how much people are trained to reflex against this possibility. Which is definitely conspiratorial. It's not just that they might have incomplete or lacking science training, or are defaulting to incorrect common-sense intuitions, no, they have been trained. Second, the hypocrisy of people benefiting from the status quo, defending a stupid idea to squeeze a few years of carbon emission, and accusing the other side of being ideologically driven is quite striking. You insult the other side by summoning the idea that they are simple peoples believing in gods and wood spirits, dismiss their opinion by projecting your own ideologically-driven hypocrisy, engage in conspiratorial-adjacent thinking by considering that their opinion is the result of propaganda. Note how close this is all to the usual climate skeptics rhetorical toolbox. After having to finally conceded that there is an issue, they are trying to justify their insane beliefs by saying that "people were not nice enough when explaining the problem and agreeing with my politics". Don't claim to advocate for science-based approach by using such rhetorical devices.
    - stereolambda 4y ago
      I doubt I should really continue discussion on these increasingly personal terms, but you're reading my first sentence in a very uncharitable way. (I mean fine, it was combative.) I could maybe accept your formulation "that they might have incomplete or lacking science training, or are defaulting to incorrect common-sense intuitions", except I'd feel that it would sound (even more?) patronizing, as we are no doubt all trained into some opinions in some way. Just by participating in culture. To be honest, I doubt that many people deeply engage with outright propaganda in any direction, I think bigger factors are inertia and not engaging with world affairs that much. If I tried to be milder and more specific, I could have said: I'd like people to have circa null prior for any technology (i.e. also not blindly enthusiastic), and what I was seeing was, I think, reacting with disaster movie tropes and vaguely mythological worldview. The rest of your post is unclear on whether you accusing me of stuff and/or people you lump me with because of your discourse analysis. I won't be addressing that anyway.
- feoren 4y ago
  > widely accepted and known solutions to climate change No such solutions exist. Cutting back CO2 emissions by a few percent is not enough. Anything else is ignoring significant economic and political realities. There are no widely-accepted and known solutions to climate change that don't involve major ecological devastation and the destruction of all our coastal cities. That's why we're looking at options like this.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    The IPCC has looked into this in some detail and regularly updated their summaries of the latest science for years. They consider solar radiation management a high risk option compared with all the other options they have documented in detail: https://www.ipcc.ch/2022/04/04/ipcc-ar6-wgiii-pressrelease/ https://www.ipcc.ch/2022/04/04/ipcc-ar6-wgiii-pressrelease/

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 :)
- grive 4y ago
  > Second, no conspiracy would be needed, just hypocrisy of individuals. To quote your first sentence: > It's interesting to me how much people are trained to reflex against this possibility. Which is definitely conspiratorial. It's not just that they might have incomplete or lacking science training, or are defaulting to incorrect common-sense intuitions, no, they have been trained. Second, the hypocrisy of people benefiting from the status quo, defending a stupid idea to squeeze a few years of carbon emission, and accusing the other side of being ideologically driven is quite striking. You insult the other side by summoning the idea that they are simple peoples believing in gods and wood spirits, dismiss their opinion by projecting your own ideologically-driven hypocrisy, engage in conspiratorial-adjacent thinking by considering that their opinion is the result of propaganda. Note how close this is all to the usual climate skeptics rhetorical toolbox. After having to finally conceded that there is an issue, they are trying to justify their insane beliefs by saying that "people were not nice enough when explaining the problem and agreeing with my politics". Don't claim to advocate for science-based approach by using such rhetorical devices.
  - stereolambda 4y ago
    I doubt I should really continue discussion on these increasingly personal terms, but you're reading my first sentence in a very uncharitable way. (I mean fine, it was combative.) I could maybe accept your formulation "that they might have incomplete or lacking science training, or are defaulting to incorrect common-sense intuitions", except I'd feel that it would sound (even more?) patronizing, as we are no doubt all trained into some opinions in some way. Just by participating in culture. To be honest, I doubt that many people deeply engage with outright propaganda in any direction, I think bigger factors are inertia and not engaging with world affairs that much. If I tried to be milder and more specific, I could have said: I'd like people to have circa null prior for any technology (i.e. also not blindly enthusiastic), and what I was seeing was, I think, reacting with disaster movie tropes and vaguely mythological worldview. The rest of your post is unclear on whether you accusing me of stuff and/or people you lump me with because of your discourse analysis. I won't be addressing that anyway.
feoren 4y ago
> widely accepted and known solutions to climate change No such solutions exist. Cutting back CO2 emissions by a few percent is not enough. Anything else is ignoring significant economic and political realities. There are no widely-accepted and known solutions to climate change that don't involve major ecological devastation and the destruction of all our coastal cities. That's why we're looking at options like this.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  The IPCC has looked into this in some detail and regularly updated their summaries of the latest science for years. They consider solar radiation management a high risk option compared with all the other options they have documented in detail: https://www.ipcc.ch/2022/04/04/ipcc-ar6-wgiii-pressrelease/ https://www.ipcc.ch/2022/04/04/ipcc-ar6-wgiii-pressrelease/