3 ms·

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,

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.
- brutusborn 3y ago
  ‘Should be the policy’ : even if that policy doesn’t affect the problem as I have argued and you ignore? ’Risky to make predictions’: if a theory isn’t predictive or falsifiable, then by what epistemology is it scientific? ‘Game of Jenga… inevitable’: assertion with no evidence ‘Not my job’: how can you claim to be so keen for action, yet don’t care if others think your arguments are convincing?
  - myshpa 3y ago
    > it doesn't reduce production > ‘Should be the policy’ : even if that policy doesn’t affect the problem as I have argued and you ignore? I haven't ignored anything. Reduced consumption reduces production. If everyone will wait for others to do something, nobody will do anything. And that is true even for states and nations. > a theory isn’t predictive or falsifiable, then by what epistemology is it scientific Let's take economics as an example. Economic theories often deal with complex and dynamic systems involving human behavior, which can be influenced by a multitude of factors. Just like climate change research, economic theories are based on trends and patterns rather than deterministic predictions. Economists study these trends to develop models that provide insights into possible outcomes, but predicting specific economic events with exact timing and outcomes remains a challenge due to the intricate nature of the field. Similarly, in fields such as evolutionary biology, scientists analyze trends in genetic variation and adaptation over time to understand the processes of natural selection. While it's difficult to predict precisely when a specific species will evolve or how a particular trait will develop, the patterns and trends observed contribute to our understanding of the underlying mechanisms of evolution. Furthermore, theoretical physics, particularly in areas like string theory or certain cosmological models, often lacks immediate experimental verification or clear-cut predictions due to the complex nature of the phenomena being studied. Yet, these theories are considered scientific because they offer explanatory power and generate testable hypotheses that could potentially be verified in the future. In the case of climate change research, while specific timelines for collapse might be hard to predict, the trends and patterns observed provide crucial information about the potential consequences of certain actions or inactions. The scientific method involves refining and updating theories as new data becomes available, and the accumulation of evidence over time can lead to a more accurate understanding of complex phenomena. > ‘Game of Jenga… inevitable’: assertion with no evidence Are you talking about Jenga or the climate/overshoot? Because if you're talking about Jenga, then it's clear you've never played it before. > how can you claim to be so keen for action, yet don’t care if others think your arguments are convincing Because I can observe the trends with my own eyes (biodiversity loss e.g.), I see where this leads, I no longer need concrete predictions and values to acknowledge the seriousness of the situation, I understand why I can't ever get them, and because your counterarguments aren't really convincing either. Sorry. I don't want to be condescending, but I've been given an advice few years back, iirc the exact words were "go read a book or two". The more resources on the subject I've read, the more I've been able to appreciate the complexity in play. Allow me to lighten it up a bit ;) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NELJiI7fdlc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NELJiI7fdlc

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.

brutusborn 3y ago
‘Should be the policy’ : even if that policy doesn’t affect the problem as I have argued and you ignore? ’Risky to make predictions’: if a theory isn’t predictive or falsifiable, then by what epistemology is it scientific? ‘Game of Jenga… inevitable’: assertion with no evidence ‘Not my job’: how can you claim to be so keen for action, yet don’t care if others think your arguments are convincing?
- myshpa 3y ago
  > it doesn't reduce production > ‘Should be the policy’ : even if that policy doesn’t affect the problem as I have argued and you ignore? I haven't ignored anything. Reduced consumption reduces production. If everyone will wait for others to do something, nobody will do anything. And that is true even for states and nations. > a theory isn’t predictive or falsifiable, then by what epistemology is it scientific Let's take economics as an example. Economic theories often deal with complex and dynamic systems involving human behavior, which can be influenced by a multitude of factors. Just like climate change research, economic theories are based on trends and patterns rather than deterministic predictions. Economists study these trends to develop models that provide insights into possible outcomes, but predicting specific economic events with exact timing and outcomes remains a challenge due to the intricate nature of the field. Similarly, in fields such as evolutionary biology, scientists analyze trends in genetic variation and adaptation over time to understand the processes of natural selection. While it's difficult to predict precisely when a specific species will evolve or how a particular trait will develop, the patterns and trends observed contribute to our understanding of the underlying mechanisms of evolution. Furthermore, theoretical physics, particularly in areas like string theory or certain cosmological models, often lacks immediate experimental verification or clear-cut predictions due to the complex nature of the phenomena being studied. Yet, these theories are considered scientific because they offer explanatory power and generate testable hypotheses that could potentially be verified in the future. In the case of climate change research, while specific timelines for collapse might be hard to predict, the trends and patterns observed provide crucial information about the potential consequences of certain actions or inactions. The scientific method involves refining and updating theories as new data becomes available, and the accumulation of evidence over time can lead to a more accurate understanding of complex phenomena. > ‘Game of Jenga… inevitable’: assertion with no evidence Are you talking about Jenga or the climate/overshoot? Because if you're talking about Jenga, then it's clear you've never played it before. > how can you claim to be so keen for action, yet don’t care if others think your arguments are convincing Because I can observe the trends with my own eyes (biodiversity loss e.g.), I see where this leads, I no longer need concrete predictions and values to acknowledge the seriousness of the situation, I understand why I can't ever get them, and because your counterarguments aren't really convincing either. Sorry. I don't want to be condescending, but I've been given an advice few years back, iirc the exact words were "go read a book or two". The more resources on the subject I've read, the more I've been able to appreciate the complexity in play. Allow me to lighten it up a bit ;) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NELJiI7fdlc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NELJiI7fdlc