3 ms·

My back of the napkin example chose 50 years because it made the numbers round. Let's pick more relevant numbers. The Paris Climate goals are to keep the incr

by xscott 2y ago

My back of the napkin example chose 50 years because it made the numbers round. Let's pick more relevant numbers. The Paris Climate goals are to keep the increase under 2C, and depending on what IPCC model you believe, it looks like we'll blow through that goal in about 25 years (2050). So now, assuming you get to take all airplanes out of the skies, not just Bezos and Musk's, and you save 2% on emissions because of it. How many years does 2% buy you past 2050? I would consider 10 years significant, 1 year certainly is not. If your answer isn't measured in years, possibly with a confidence interval, we'll both know this is more of you trying to "win" an internet discussion by arguing in bad faith.

Timon3 2y ago
You're deliberately looking at the wrong aspect and once again reducing a complex issue to a simple number. The question isn't "how many years does this give us until we reach an arbitrary goal", it's "what effect does the additional time have?". We're currently experiencing a mass extinction only rivaled by previous incredibly catastrophic events. Even a single year could mean whole ecosystems collapsing or not collapsing. If we find a technological solution for climate change in 2050, but critical species went extinct due to overheating in 2049, the 2% air emissions will be the difference between billions of people dying or not dying. I don't know how to quantify these risks, and apparently neither do you. But that doesn't mean we can ignore them when we consider the best course of action. It only means: your model is insufficient and simplifies things beyond reason.
- xscott 2y ago
  I doubt you believe 2% is going to save billions of lives because of a tipping point in 2049. That's another bad faith argument, but go ahead and ground all the aircraft. No skin off my back. The reason for pointing out insignificant things is so that people aren't distracted from the significant things. "It's complicated." So go ahead and keep everyone worrying about Taylor Swift's jet. Create a carbon tax for billionaires. Offset the emissions, or whatever. But you aren't looking at things that could actually make a difference.
  - Timon3 2y ago
    It's not a bad faith argument to bring up a scenario deliberately constructed for showing complexities your simplifying model deliberately ignores. Obviously I don't believe that this scenario will literally happen, and I can't imagine you're interacting in good faith if you still don't understand that.
    - xscott 2y ago
      It's bad faith unless you really believe that's _plausible_, not some extremely stretched version of _possible_. > Obviously I don't believe that this scenario will literally happen So you don't think that's really plausible, and I don't think it was a good faith argument. I'm going to say it again, because I don't think you got it: The reason for criticizing when people focus on insignificant things is because it's a distraction from focusing on things that could actually make a difference.
      - Timon3 2y ago
        I absolutely believe that it's plausible for a comparable scenario to occur. It might not be 2049 and 2050, but 2075 and 2080? Or 2100 and 2110? Unless you believe that humanity will 100% die off or 100% fix climate change tomorrow, the chance of a 2% reduction in CO2 output having no measurable effect on our future is close to 0%, yet your modelling puts it at close to 100%. I'm going to say it again, because I don't think you got it: you're deliberately misrepresenting the situation and simplifying things beyond reason. The correct response to an inability to model something isn't to just leave it out. You specifically pointed out that we should make these decisions based on math, but your math is incomplete enough to be useless.
        xscott 2y ago
        We should wrap this up. Saying 2075 or 2110 is the same ridiculous claim as 2049, but I'll pretend you believe it'll save a billion lives to be done with it. Btw, since you're only really interested in winning debates, you probably shouldn't open the window for other people to define the terms. When you asked me for a definition of "significant", it puts you in a bad spot no matter whether you do or don't respond to it. Of course you didn't respond with a number of years, because that would support my point. I gave a really concrete scenario, and you refused to answer, and it was obvious to both of us why you didn't answer. Best of luck in your future internet battles. Everyone needs a hobby.

by xscott 2y ago

Timon3 2y ago

You're deliberately looking at the wrong aspect and once again reducing a complex issue to a simple number. The question isn't "how many years does this give us until we reach an arbitrary goal", it's "what effect does the additional time have?". We're currently experiencing a mass extinction only rivaled by previous incredibly catastrophic events. Even a single year could mean whole ecosystems collapsing or not collapsing. If we find a technological solution for climate change in 2050, but critical species went extinct due to overheating in 2049, the 2% air emissions will be the difference between billions of people dying or not dying. I don't know how to quantify these risks, and apparently neither do you. But that doesn't mean we can ignore them when we consider the best course of action. It only means: your model is insufficient and simplifies things beyond reason.

xscott 2y ago
I doubt you believe 2% is going to save billions of lives because of a tipping point in 2049. That's another bad faith argument, but go ahead and ground all the aircraft. No skin off my back. The reason for pointing out insignificant things is so that people aren't distracted from the significant things. "It's complicated." So go ahead and keep everyone worrying about Taylor Swift's jet. Create a carbon tax for billionaires. Offset the emissions, or whatever. But you aren't looking at things that could actually make a difference.
- Timon3 2y ago
  It's not a bad faith argument to bring up a scenario deliberately constructed for showing complexities your simplifying model deliberately ignores. Obviously I don't believe that this scenario will literally happen, and I can't imagine you're interacting in good faith if you still don't understand that.
  - xscott 2y ago
    It's bad faith unless you really believe that's _plausible_, not some extremely stretched version of _possible_. > Obviously I don't believe that this scenario will literally happen So you don't think that's really plausible, and I don't think it was a good faith argument. I'm going to say it again, because I don't think you got it: The reason for criticizing when people focus on insignificant things is because it's a distraction from focusing on things that could actually make a difference.
    - Timon3 2y ago
      I absolutely believe that it's plausible for a comparable scenario to occur. It might not be 2049 and 2050, but 2075 and 2080? Or 2100 and 2110? Unless you believe that humanity will 100% die off or 100% fix climate change tomorrow, the chance of a 2% reduction in CO2 output having no measurable effect on our future is close to 0%, yet your modelling puts it at close to 100%. I'm going to say it again, because I don't think you got it: you're deliberately misrepresenting the situation and simplifying things beyond reason. The correct response to an inability to model something isn't to just leave it out. You specifically pointed out that we should make these decisions based on math, but your math is incomplete enough to be useless.
      - xscott 2y ago
        We should wrap this up. Saying 2075 or 2110 is the same ridiculous claim as 2049, but I'll pretend you believe it'll save a billion lives to be done with it. Btw, since you're only really interested in winning debates, you probably shouldn't open the window for other people to define the terms. When you asked me for a definition of "significant", it puts you in a bad spot no matter whether you do or don't respond to it. Of course you didn't respond with a number of years, because that would support my point. I gave a really concrete scenario, and you refused to answer, and it was obvious to both of us why you didn't answer. Best of luck in your future internet battles. Everyone needs a hobby.