3 ms·

Finally, somebody is telling the truth about CO2. Not all is grim about climate. The things are in the middle, as always. Reality is neither black nor white. h

Finally, somebody is telling the truth about CO2. Not all is grim about climate. The things are in the middle, as always. Reality is neither black nor white. https://futurecrunch.com/goodnews2023/ https://futurecrunch.com/goodnews2023/

jraph 3y ago
The truth? Because everything else is lies? "'Everything is on fire, but at least this guy is not cold anymore!'; Cool, at least somebody is saying the truth, not everything is black". There's no middle. There are projections, and there are what we are already seeing. Of course reality is complex. Of course increasing CO2 levels might have some benefits. But there's no way, all things considered, it's a net benefit overall. Why would you need to point out that look, there are benefits? It doesn't matter. We still need to fix this and for that, we need more concern about climate change, not less (and above all, the relevant people to be concerned). All this assuming that the planet going greener is a good thing at all. The second sentence of the linked article is literally "Scientists are worried".
- huqedato 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - jraph 3y ago
    A prefers reading black on white. Z prefers reading white on black. M prefers the middle, reading grey on grey. No, there's no always a middle. In any case, you are not pointing at a middle. You are just focusing on a(n additional) fact in an ocean of known facts. A fact that you seem to think changes the perspective one should have on the topic. I didn't downvote, but I suspect you are downvoted because this is wrong and it doesn't help. We certainly don't need people to tame and water things down in this topic.
- exoverito 3y ago
  >But there's no way, all things considered, it's a net benefit overall. This seems like a very dogmatic statement to make. Especially when weighed with benefits of cheap energy and economic growth. A wealthier world can build the infrastructure to handle potentially negative effects of climate change. The more extreme environmentalists and marxists say we should be engaging in degrowth, which would just result in a kind of feudal and static society, even more vulnerable to climate change. It should also be noted that the Little Ice Age in Europe was associated with scarcity and famine, while the Roman Warm Period was associated with golden ages of several civilizations across the world.
  - jraph 3y ago
    >> But there's no way, all things considered, it's a net benefit overall. > This seems like a very dogmatic statement to make Do you think climate change could have a net benefit? I don't think that thinking that's false is dogmatic. It's too late for "we'll manage". Time to go for "We need to manage now" because... > A wealthier world can build the infrastructure to handle potentially negative effects of climate change. ... has not happened. The wealthy civilization needs to want it and make it a priority now. Anyway, I'm replying to someone who speaks about potentially negative effects of climate change. Wake up! It's not "potentially" anymore, it's already started! "Technology will save us" is a tired trope at this point.
    - CatWChainsaw 3y ago
      Exactly to your point about wealthy civilizations needing to want to use their excesses for good... we had an agricultural revolution in the 70s and rather than feed the starving we just continued same old. Now we're losing topsoil, fertilizers derived from fossil fuels, stable climates to grow crops, pest/weather resistance, and nutrition. And we 4Xed the global population in the meantime.
    - friend_and_foe 3y ago
      I personally do think the net benefit is positive, for the biosphere, not necessarily for human beings, which is where our action comes in. We can benefit if we choose to benefit. A wealthier world building the infrastructure to handle the negative effects does not look how you think it does. It doesn't look like a unified concerted effort to hold back the tide in a figurative sense. It looks like communities that live on shorelines building levees, to hold back the tide in a literal sense. What you want and what need to be done are not the same things. You can't say we have failed just because the solution isn't what you wish it were. The world is changing and people will manage.
arp242 3y ago
> The things are in the middle, as always. Always? Really? Please, list all the advantages and nuance for leaded gasoline, paint, and other uses of lead. Or maybe all the nuanced advantageous effects that asbestos has on your lungs? And if we move beyond environmental issues things get even more ridiculous, but let's not get too side-tracked.
- mitthrowaway2 3y ago
  Oddly enough, optimization theory says that almost always the best policy is as far away from the middle as possible, right at the boundaries, where physical constraints intersect to hold you back from taking any more extreme action.
- quesera 3y ago
  I won't take a position on your intended point, but these are not good examples. Leaded paint was better than non-leaded paint. Leaded solder also. Asbestos was the wonder material. Yes, the negatives outweighed the positives. But the truth was absolutely in the middle in these cases. The materials were great. The unintended/unexpected side effects were bad. Leaded gasoline, leaded paint, leaded solder, and asbestos are all still used today where the conditions are suitable, because the material is superior for the application.

jraph 3y ago

The truth? Because everything else is lies? "'Everything is on fire, but at least this guy is not cold anymore!'; Cool, at least somebody is saying the truth, not everything is black". There's no middle. There are projections, and there are what we are already seeing. Of course reality is complex. Of course increasing CO2 levels might have some benefits. But there's no way, all things considered, it's a net benefit overall. Why would you need to point out that look, there are benefits? It doesn't matter. We still need to fix this and for that, we need more concern about climate change, not less (and above all, the relevant people to be concerned). All this assuming that the planet going greener is a good thing at all. The second sentence of the linked article is literally "Scientists are worried".

huqedato 3y ago
[flagged]
- jraph 3y ago
  A prefers reading black on white. Z prefers reading white on black. M prefers the middle, reading grey on grey. No, there's no always a middle. In any case, you are not pointing at a middle. You are just focusing on a(n additional) fact in an ocean of known facts. A fact that you seem to think changes the perspective one should have on the topic. I didn't downvote, but I suspect you are downvoted because this is wrong and it doesn't help. We certainly don't need people to tame and water things down in this topic.
exoverito 3y ago
>But there's no way, all things considered, it's a net benefit overall. This seems like a very dogmatic statement to make. Especially when weighed with benefits of cheap energy and economic growth. A wealthier world can build the infrastructure to handle potentially negative effects of climate change. The more extreme environmentalists and marxists say we should be engaging in degrowth, which would just result in a kind of feudal and static society, even more vulnerable to climate change. It should also be noted that the Little Ice Age in Europe was associated with scarcity and famine, while the Roman Warm Period was associated with golden ages of several civilizations across the world.
- jraph 3y ago
  >> But there's no way, all things considered, it's a net benefit overall. > This seems like a very dogmatic statement to make Do you think climate change could have a net benefit? I don't think that thinking that's false is dogmatic. It's too late for "we'll manage". Time to go for "We need to manage now" because... > A wealthier world can build the infrastructure to handle potentially negative effects of climate change. ... has not happened. The wealthy civilization needs to want it and make it a priority now. Anyway, I'm replying to someone who speaks about potentially negative effects of climate change. Wake up! It's not "potentially" anymore, it's already started! "Technology will save us" is a tired trope at this point.
  - CatWChainsaw 3y ago
    Exactly to your point about wealthy civilizations needing to want to use their excesses for good... we had an agricultural revolution in the 70s and rather than feed the starving we just continued same old. Now we're losing topsoil, fertilizers derived from fossil fuels, stable climates to grow crops, pest/weather resistance, and nutrition. And we 4Xed the global population in the meantime.
  - friend_and_foe 3y ago
    I personally do think the net benefit is positive, for the biosphere, not necessarily for human beings, which is where our action comes in. We can benefit if we choose to benefit. A wealthier world building the infrastructure to handle the negative effects does not look how you think it does. It doesn't look like a unified concerted effort to hold back the tide in a figurative sense. It looks like communities that live on shorelines building levees, to hold back the tide in a literal sense. What you want and what need to be done are not the same things. You can't say we have failed just because the solution isn't what you wish it were. The world is changing and people will manage.

arp242 3y ago

> The things are in the middle, as always. Always? Really? Please, list all the advantages and nuance for leaded gasoline, paint, and other uses of lead. Or maybe all the nuanced advantageous effects that asbestos has on your lungs? And if we move beyond environmental issues things get even more ridiculous, but let's not get too side-tracked.

mitthrowaway2 3y ago
Oddly enough, optimization theory says that almost always the best policy is as far away from the middle as possible, right at the boundaries, where physical constraints intersect to hold you back from taking any more extreme action.
quesera 3y ago
I won't take a position on your intended point, but these are not good examples. Leaded paint was better than non-leaded paint. Leaded solder also. Asbestos was the wonder material. Yes, the negatives outweighed the positives. But the truth was absolutely in the middle in these cases. The materials were great. The unintended/unexpected side effects were bad. Leaded gasoline, leaded paint, leaded solder, and asbestos are all still used today where the conditions are suitable, because the material is superior for the application.