5 ms·

Thank you too. I’ll correct a couple points I think you missed: the extinction rebellion people are not offering a policy that stops warming or stops existenti

Thank you too. I’ll correct a couple points I think you missed: the extinction rebellion people are not offering a policy that stops warming or stops existential threats from warming. They are choosing simplicity over efficacy. It’s absurd to say I am choosing extinction, I oppose them _because_ their politics won’t result in reducing risk of extinction. What does it matter if the risk of droughts/circulation changes is low? Because if the risk is low, then there is a greater chance that an early intervention will cause more harm that it saves. I gave you a few examples of such policies. Acting from ignorance almost always results in bad policy. You may interpret this as me being “too slow” but I have shown that being “too fast” results in negative outcomes that makes the problem harder to solve.

myshpa 3y ago
> rebellion people are not offering a policy The way I see it they're just "the end is nigh" people, screeming "wake up people, do something". Scientists are screaming too, in their own way, but nobody listens. > I’ll correct a couple points I think you missed Allow me to do the same ;) > It’s absurd to say I am choosing extinction The problem of climate change and the overshoot is known for 50-70 years, and probably more. Just look how effective we've been in solving those problems, so far. We're still growing, polluting more than ever, destroying more than ever, on an exponential curve. Every ten years is much more worse than previous ten. There is no no sign that those trends are slowing. https://futureearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/great_accel-12graph-SE.png https://futureearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/great_acc... You want guarantees and assurances and policies from environmental groups and scientists, which is imho unreasonable given how complex the problems and nature are. Exact numbers are irrelevant. It's all estimates anyway. But we don't have anything better to help us navigate. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1e/What_if_it%27s_a_big_hoax_and_we_create_a_better_world_for_nothing%3F.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1e/What_if_it%27... I understand we should stay away from bad policies, and we've surely seen enough of that from our politicians who are looking for fast and easy solutions to be able to placate their base that they're doing something, vote me again. But what's so bad e.g. on abolishing animal ag, which is not necessary (for human health), has alternatives, and is at the same time extremely inefficient, polluting, destructive and is behind most of the problems of the overshoot? What's so bad on deciding to not start new oil wells, save those subsidies (and we subsidize it a lot), and instead redirect it to renewables and research of new technologies? There are few things we could do almost instantly, like to remove/phase out subsidies for the most polluting sectors, and it would do a lot to stop to mitigate the negative effects of the overshoot (I hope you're not disputing that we're, in fact, in the overshoot). But instead we're subsidizing the biggest polluters forever more, still expanding production, curbing nothing (coal is still at 82%) ... there's nothing to suggest that we're on the right track. It's not that we're slowing too slow. We're still pressing the pedal to the floor, driving faster and faster to the ... scratch that ... down the cliff. For me ... waiting, delaying meaningful (not politically convenient) actions means choosing extinction. Absolutely. We couldn't live as we do without the support of the environment.
- brutusborn 3y ago
  We seem to be going in circles a bit here. For example, what is wrong with banning oil wells in the UK? I already explained that: it doesn't reduce production, it just moves it to places with less environmental regulation. Why didn't you engage with my argument on that point? What is wrong with reflexive policies like banning animal ag? As I have shown, such policies are generally not well thought out and cause more problems because advocates refuse to consider nuance (eg biofuels, sulphate reduction). I don't want guarantees and assurances from anyone, those don't exist when discussing scientific theories: I just want good data/models of the problem and solutions that are logical and practical. I want nuance instead of impractical doomerism. You can keep repeating "collapse", "overshoot", "down the cliff" but you need to back this up with models and data. So far you have only referenced models which explicitly tell us not to interpret them as a future prediction! You refer to articles that exaggerate risks by choosing the worst results from single studies (eg arctic ice gone by 2030!). You keep bringing up problems which are basically independent of climate change (eg shark population) and ignoring any progress we have made in terms of renewables. This is not a logical scientific approach to solving a serious problem. This kind of approach also doesn't convince skeptics: it just reinforces their belief that climate activists are immune to argument and nuance.
  - myshpa 3y ago
    > what is wrong with banning oil wells in the UK A swift phase-out of fossil fuels should be the policy. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-07-27/the-harsh-truth-is-we-ve-never-consumed-this-much-oil https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-07-27/the-ha... The Harsh Truth: We're Using More Oil Than Ever > reflexive policies like banning animal ag Animal ag. is not on the same level as biofuels (profitable and politically convenient and wrong) or sulphate reduction (I don't watch that space). You wrote in another discussion "what's wrong with pastures"? If you're interested in addressing these problems, I suggest exploring agriculture. You will discover that it's a much larger problem than one might infer from following mainstream media. > you need to back this up with models and data ... which explicitly tell us not to interpret them as a future prediction Because it's risky for the scientists monitoring a trend to provide precise predictions about the future, the major challenges lie in complex systems, long timescales, and both known and unknown unknowns. Predictions of this sort would come under criticism from various perspectives, and due to the uncertainties involved, such a step could likely result in the destruction of many careers. ELI5: It's comparable to a game of Jenga where you take pieces from the bottom and place them on top. With each added piece, the structure becomes increasingly unstable. The exact moment of collapse is uncertain, but the eventual outcome is inevitable. > approach also doesn't convince skeptics Not my job. "Climate grief" encompasses various stages, with skepticism being one of the initial ones. It's likely that some individuals may never be persuaded (in advance). > immune to argument and nuance That's the issue on both fronts.

myshpa 3y ago

> rebellion people are not offering a policy The way I see it they're just "the end is nigh" people, screeming "wake up people, do something". Scientists are screaming too, in their own way, but nobody listens. > I’ll correct a couple points I think you missed Allow me to do the same ;) > It’s absurd to say I am choosing extinction The problem of climate change and the overshoot is known for 50-70 years, and probably more. Just look how effective we've been in solving those problems, so far. We're still growing, polluting more than ever, destroying more than ever, on an exponential curve. Every ten years is much more worse than previous ten. There is no no sign that those trends are slowing. https://futureearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/great_accel-12graph-SE.png https://futureearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/great_acc... You want guarantees and assurances and policies from environmental groups and scientists, which is imho unreasonable given how complex the problems and nature are. Exact numbers are irrelevant. It's all estimates anyway. But we don't have anything better to help us navigate. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1e/What_if_it%27s_a_big_hoax_and_we_create_a_better_world_for_nothing%3F.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1e/What_if_it%27... I understand we should stay away from bad policies, and we've surely seen enough of that from our politicians who are looking for fast and easy solutions to be able to placate their base that they're doing something, vote me again. But what's so bad e.g. on abolishing animal ag, which is not necessary (for human health), has alternatives, and is at the same time extremely inefficient, polluting, destructive and is behind most of the problems of the overshoot? What's so bad on deciding to not start new oil wells, save those subsidies (and we subsidize it a lot), and instead redirect it to renewables and research of new technologies? There are few things we could do almost instantly, like to remove/phase out subsidies for the most polluting sectors, and it would do a lot to stop to mitigate the negative effects of the overshoot (I hope you're not disputing that we're, in fact, in the overshoot). But instead we're subsidizing the biggest polluters forever more, still expanding production, curbing nothing (coal is still at 82%) ... there's nothing to suggest that we're on the right track. It's not that we're slowing too slow. We're still pressing the pedal to the floor, driving faster and faster to the ... scratch that ... down the cliff. For me ... waiting, delaying meaningful (not politically convenient) actions means choosing extinction. Absolutely. We couldn't live as we do without the support of the environment.

brutusborn 3y ago
We seem to be going in circles a bit here. For example, what is wrong with banning oil wells in the UK? I already explained that: it doesn't reduce production, it just moves it to places with less environmental regulation. Why didn't you engage with my argument on that point? What is wrong with reflexive policies like banning animal ag? As I have shown, such policies are generally not well thought out and cause more problems because advocates refuse to consider nuance (eg biofuels, sulphate reduction). I don't want guarantees and assurances from anyone, those don't exist when discussing scientific theories: I just want good data/models of the problem and solutions that are logical and practical. I want nuance instead of impractical doomerism. You can keep repeating "collapse", "overshoot", "down the cliff" but you need to back this up with models and data. So far you have only referenced models which explicitly tell us not to interpret them as a future prediction! You refer to articles that exaggerate risks by choosing the worst results from single studies (eg arctic ice gone by 2030!). You keep bringing up problems which are basically independent of climate change (eg shark population) and ignoring any progress we have made in terms of renewables. This is not a logical scientific approach to solving a serious problem. This kind of approach also doesn't convince skeptics: it just reinforces their belief that climate activists are immune to argument and nuance.
- myshpa 3y ago
  > what is wrong with banning oil wells in the UK A swift phase-out of fossil fuels should be the policy. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-07-27/the-harsh-truth-is-we-ve-never-consumed-this-much-oil https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-07-27/the-ha... The Harsh Truth: We're Using More Oil Than Ever > reflexive policies like banning animal ag Animal ag. is not on the same level as biofuels (profitable and politically convenient and wrong) or sulphate reduction (I don't watch that space). You wrote in another discussion "what's wrong with pastures"? If you're interested in addressing these problems, I suggest exploring agriculture. You will discover that it's a much larger problem than one might infer from following mainstream media. > you need to back this up with models and data ... which explicitly tell us not to interpret them as a future prediction Because it's risky for the scientists monitoring a trend to provide precise predictions about the future, the major challenges lie in complex systems, long timescales, and both known and unknown unknowns. Predictions of this sort would come under criticism from various perspectives, and due to the uncertainties involved, such a step could likely result in the destruction of many careers. ELI5: It's comparable to a game of Jenga where you take pieces from the bottom and place them on top. With each added piece, the structure becomes increasingly unstable. The exact moment of collapse is uncertain, but the eventual outcome is inevitable. > approach also doesn't convince skeptics Not my job. "Climate grief" encompasses various stages, with skepticism being one of the initial ones. It's likely that some individuals may never be persuaded (in advance). > immune to argument and nuance That's the issue on both fronts.