3 ms·

>> how building out nuclear power and other non-fossil energy sources >I'm not against that, and I'd tend to agree with you on that.[..] Glad you agree with

>> how building out nuclear power and other non-fossil energy sources >I'm not against that, and I'd tend to agree with you on that.[..] Glad you agree with my central point. Not exactly sure what all the ranting is about, then. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I haven't heard of Sid Smith and am not sure why I should have. Apparently some obscure random retired math professor who rants about collapse. I checked the video where he talks about nuclear, and there he just repeats talking points that are either wrong, irrelevant, or both. So same old same old. (I used to vote green, but them being instrumental in the worst environmental/economic and foreign policy decision of the last 50 years in Germany is putting a damper on that). Not sure why I should listen to the rest, but I might just for curiosity, though given what I've seen it is unlikely to be substantive or enlightening. > So not ecosystems restoration. ... anything to avoid doing the right thing Where did I say that? Nowhere, that's where. Please keep your straw men to yourself. > Solar radiation management [problems] And where did I write this was "good"? That's right: nowhere again. I said "bad, but manageable". And we know that it is manageable because we actually have data. Lots of it. From quite a number of volcanic eruptions. Again, is this good? No. But it does mean that the doomsday scenarios people keep painting are wrong. The earth will not become uninhabitable due to runaway global warming, because we know how to stop that. And again, the ways of stopping it are certainly less than ideal, but they exist and are even fairly predictable. Regarding the Club of Rome and LoG: sorry, but no. Their original claim was resource exhaustion on a fairly tight timeline, and resources are not becoming exhausted, and certainly not on anything like their timeline. See the Simon / Ehrlich wager, which put that theory to the test, and was lost in all resource categories. And no, a political position statement by the UK green + labour parties is not evidence. The KPMG piece that claims to validate the original actually does nothing of the sort. In fact, it has to completely discard the original model's predictions: "Around 1990, it became clear that non-renewable resources, particularly fossil fuels, had turned out to be more plentiful than assumed in the 1972 BAU scenario. Randers therefore postulated that not resource scarcity, but pollution, especially from greenhouse gases, would cause the halt in growth. " This is in the "Updates to the LtG" section. Some "update". LOL. "Remember the stuff we said about resources becoming depleted? Yeah, that was complete bunk. We now know that it is pollution. How do we know this? Well, because of the perfect forecasting record of our models that we just had to discard" You can't make this stuff up. See: https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/economic-growth-and-its-critics-by-bj-rn-lomborg https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/economic-growth... And you still haven't told me how "my approach", the one you agree with, leads to going to pre-industrial civilisation.

myshpa 3y ago
> Where did I say that? Nowhere, that's where I never said that you did. I did, and you're taking it out of context. >> Solar radiation management [problems] > And where did I write this was "good"? That's right: nowhere again. I said "bad, but manageable" You're misquoting youself. You said that climate warming is bad, but manageable. And I don't agree with you there. > See the Simon / Ehrlich wager This bet was over a relatively short timescale and on a very narrow selection of resources, and so doesn't definitively prove or disprove the larger issues raised by the Club of Rome. > You can't make this stuff up. See: Lomborg views are very controversial, and even this article has some serious problems. - resource abundance - while it's true that predictions about running out of certain resources haven't come to pass thanks to technological innovation and more efficient usage, this doesn't mean that all resources are infinite or that extraction doesn't have environmental costs. Extraction and use of fossil fuels, for instance, is one of the leading causes of climate change - innovation - innovation isn't guaranteed to solve all problems, dependence on it to resolve issues of resource scarcity or environmental degradation might be risky - economic growth - exponential economic growth is unsustainable in the long term given the finite planet - pesticides and organic farming - he oversimplifies the issues, organic farming isn't solely about avoiding pesticides - it's also about soil health, biodiversity, and long-term sustainability - pollution: is still a major problem worldwide, particularly in developing nations, he doesn't address climate change (a form of pollution) with poses massive risks at all > "my approach", the one you agree with You're misquoting me again. I tend to agree that nuclear should be a part of the solution. However, based on the opinions of more knowledgeable experts in the field, I'm not entirely convinced that it's possible or feasible on the scale and timeline required. I'm not with you on your stance on solar radiation management. In my opinion, it's not a solution at all, and it would be extremely irresponsible and almost stupid to even attempt it. Sure, I don't have any sources to back up my claims - just as you don't, and that's fine. That's why the White House is calling for further studies, not the implementation of the idea, while a number of experts express serious concerns and strong reservations about this "solution".
myshpa 3y ago
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/30/radical-ways-to-fix-the-earth-are-they-magic-bullets-or-just-band-aids https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/30/radical-... Dismissing SRM technology, Prof Joeri Rogelj of Imperial College, London, called it “irresponsible, dangerous and a threat to the manageability” of our survival, saying: “It is not a solution but an extremely dangerous band-aid that covers up the global warming problem without healing it, creating a false and unwarranted sense of climate safety while the core of the problem continues to fester.”

myshpa 3y ago

> Where did I say that? Nowhere, that's where I never said that you did. I did, and you're taking it out of context. >> Solar radiation management [problems] > And where did I write this was "good"? That's right: nowhere again. I said "bad, but manageable" You're misquoting youself. You said that climate warming is bad, but manageable. And I don't agree with you there. > See the Simon / Ehrlich wager This bet was over a relatively short timescale and on a very narrow selection of resources, and so doesn't definitively prove or disprove the larger issues raised by the Club of Rome. > You can't make this stuff up. See: Lomborg views are very controversial, and even this article has some serious problems. - resource abundance - while it's true that predictions about running out of certain resources haven't come to pass thanks to technological innovation and more efficient usage, this doesn't mean that all resources are infinite or that extraction doesn't have environmental costs. Extraction and use of fossil fuels, for instance, is one of the leading causes of climate change - innovation - innovation isn't guaranteed to solve all problems, dependence on it to resolve issues of resource scarcity or environmental degradation might be risky - economic growth - exponential economic growth is unsustainable in the long term given the finite planet - pesticides and organic farming - he oversimplifies the issues, organic farming isn't solely about avoiding pesticides - it's also about soil health, biodiversity, and long-term sustainability - pollution: is still a major problem worldwide, particularly in developing nations, he doesn't address climate change (a form of pollution) with poses massive risks at all > "my approach", the one you agree with You're misquoting me again. I tend to agree that nuclear should be a part of the solution. However, based on the opinions of more knowledgeable experts in the field, I'm not entirely convinced that it's possible or feasible on the scale and timeline required. I'm not with you on your stance on solar radiation management. In my opinion, it's not a solution at all, and it would be extremely irresponsible and almost stupid to even attempt it. Sure, I don't have any sources to back up my claims - just as you don't, and that's fine. That's why the White House is calling for further studies, not the implementation of the idea, while a number of experts express serious concerns and strong reservations about this "solution".

myshpa 3y ago

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/30/radical-ways-to-fix-the-earth-are-they-magic-bullets-or-just-band-aids https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/30/radical-... Dismissing SRM technology, Prof Joeri Rogelj of Imperial College, London, called it “irresponsible, dangerous and a threat to the manageability” of our survival, saying: “It is not a solution but an extremely dangerous band-aid that covers up the global warming problem without healing it, creating a false and unwarranted sense of climate safety while the core of the problem continues to fester.”