4 ms·

Oil corporations and related industries has been making trillions of fossil carbon emissions, and is expensive to undo this? Who should pay here is clear. And

Oil corporations and related industries has been making trillions of fossil carbon emissions, and is expensive to undo this? Who should pay here is clear. And the focus of the article is to push a company that make biofuels, that don't increase the amount of fossil carbon, but also doesn't decrease the amount of GHG in the atmosphere nor through geoengineering try to cool down the planet. It may, eventually, work as an (expensive) alternative to fossil fuels, but that must happen, all points that fossil fuels will keep being extracted till they are not economical to extract them anymore. But as those "green" fuels are being generated, somewhat the perception of that something is being done remains. Anyway, as with COVID, that when you notice the symptoms it is already too late for you and the people around you, we are now noticing the big symptoms of all those emissions during in the last decades. Even if we stop everything (not the fake stop of the "solution" the article is selling) the system inertia and its feedback loops will push the entire planet into a hot spot. Odds are high that a massive geoenginneering (or geotrying, at least) will be done, and not so low that that effort won't solve anything or worsen badly things in unexpected yet ways.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
> Even if we stop everything the system inertia and its feedback loops will push the entire planet into a hot spot. This sounds more like doomerism than science. Who can listen to this crap without wondering if the climate change believers aren't a little kookoo for cocopuffs?
- MattPalmer1086 3y ago
  It's well understood that even if we stopped all carbon emissions now, the warming trend would continue for a while. Even if it were not so, why would the comment of one random netizen make you question the beliefs of all the people who do follow the science? Who can read comments like yours without wondering if all climate change deniers are all a bit disengenous?
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
    > why would the comment of one rando It wouldn't. There's been a concerted effort for decades to do anything to keep the discourse from shifting to geoengineering. The same sort of unintelligent counter-arguments are used for it that the people who are overly concerned about the economy use. > of all the people who do follow the science? Nothing I have ever learned about science has ever said anything about "following science". It is a principle of science I have never heard even a hint of. I have heard of people following religion. All the time. It seems to be one of their favorite words. > Who can read comments like yours without wondering if all climate change deniers are all a bit disengenous? If a grifter goes after you trying to pull a fast one, why would you have any obligation to be honest with them? In fact, if they start trying to harangue you about honesty, that's just another part of their grift. Geoengineering is something I've never opposed. We can and probably should do it regardless of whether you guys are right about climate change. If it's too cold, make it warmer, if it's too hot, make it cooler. The only reason to not do it is if you see an opportunity to seize political power by allowing a crisis to continue. If it gets solved (especially too early), you might not stay in charge (or in this case, never quite make it there in the first place).
    - MattPalmer1086 3y ago
      "Following the science" just means paying attention to what science is telling us at the moment. You can also follow baseball or music or any other ongoing activity. It's a really common phrase, and is not a scientific principle.
      - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
        > "Following the science" just means paying attention to what science is telling us at the moment. Science doesn't tell us anything. It's just a loose set of methods for investigating how the universe works. When you anthropomorphize it, it's kind of dumb and sounds a little like you're trying to deify it. Don't follow science. Perform it. Read it. Think about it. Don't believe in it. It's not a religion. It's not your young child that needs you to believe in it. Instead, suspect the truth while remaining skeptical. Know it. Learn it. Using emotionally charged words takes you further away from what it's all about. > It's a really common phrase, But also a really bad one.
pmoriarty 3y ago
> Oil corporations and related industries has been making trillions of fossil carbon emissions, and is expensive to undo this? Who should pay here is clear. If they even do pay (which is far from certain), they'll find a way to pass the costs to consumers.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

> Even if we stop everything the system inertia and its feedback loops will push the entire planet into a hot spot. This sounds more like doomerism than science. Who can listen to this crap without wondering if the climate change believers aren't a little kookoo for cocopuffs?

MattPalmer1086 3y ago
It's well understood that even if we stopped all carbon emissions now, the warming trend would continue for a while. Even if it were not so, why would the comment of one random netizen make you question the beliefs of all the people who do follow the science? Who can read comments like yours without wondering if all climate change deniers are all a bit disengenous?
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  > why would the comment of one rando It wouldn't. There's been a concerted effort for decades to do anything to keep the discourse from shifting to geoengineering. The same sort of unintelligent counter-arguments are used for it that the people who are overly concerned about the economy use. > of all the people who do follow the science? Nothing I have ever learned about science has ever said anything about "following science". It is a principle of science I have never heard even a hint of. I have heard of people following religion. All the time. It seems to be one of their favorite words. > Who can read comments like yours without wondering if all climate change deniers are all a bit disengenous? If a grifter goes after you trying to pull a fast one, why would you have any obligation to be honest with them? In fact, if they start trying to harangue you about honesty, that's just another part of their grift. Geoengineering is something I've never opposed. We can and probably should do it regardless of whether you guys are right about climate change. If it's too cold, make it warmer, if it's too hot, make it cooler. The only reason to not do it is if you see an opportunity to seize political power by allowing a crisis to continue. If it gets solved (especially too early), you might not stay in charge (or in this case, never quite make it there in the first place).
  - MattPalmer1086 3y ago
    "Following the science" just means paying attention to what science is telling us at the moment. You can also follow baseball or music or any other ongoing activity. It's a really common phrase, and is not a scientific principle.
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
      > "Following the science" just means paying attention to what science is telling us at the moment. Science doesn't tell us anything. It's just a loose set of methods for investigating how the universe works. When you anthropomorphize it, it's kind of dumb and sounds a little like you're trying to deify it. Don't follow science. Perform it. Read it. Think about it. Don't believe in it. It's not a religion. It's not your young child that needs you to believe in it. Instead, suspect the truth while remaining skeptical. Know it. Learn it. Using emotionally charged words takes you further away from what it's all about. > It's a really common phrase, But also a really bad one.

pmoriarty 3y ago

> Oil corporations and related industries has been making trillions of fossil carbon emissions, and is expensive to undo this? Who should pay here is clear. If they even do pay (which is far from certain), they'll find a way to pass the costs to consumers.