4 ms·

The debate is, indeed, pretty pointless. The data is pretty clear. Human activity is driving global warming. I'm not hungry for alternatives. I'm hungry for th

The debate is, indeed, pretty pointless. The data is pretty clear. Human activity is driving global warming. I'm not hungry for alternatives. I'm hungry for the debate to end and us to move forward towards less polluting energy sources and transportation means. As we agree there is no true debate to be had about the causes, we should move on to solutions. Time for another metaphor! Let's say you live in a big house with a bunch of other people. There's a problem, someone keeps shitting on the floor. You even know who the floor-shitter is! You could ignore what you know about the cause of the situation and just focus on after-the-fact mitigation. You could put down absorbent pads and hope the floor-shitter chooses to use them. You could establish a shit-watch rotation that attempts to detect and clean up the turds as soon as possible after they're laid. You could remove all carpet and rugs to make the cleanup easier. You could install air filters and fresheners to help with the smell. Or you could address the cause, and seek ways to stop the floor-shitter from shitting on the floor in the first place.

mhb 1y ago
There is no chance this will be solved by convincing people to stop using fossil fuels. If you somehow were able to convince the Western countries, you're not going to convince China and the rest of world. The options are nuclear for baseline with solar and wind supplementing it. Or geoengineering. The cost will be astronomical and voters will not be happy to pay for it. Also, bizarrely, countries with nuclear have actually been turning off their nuclear. Given the incentives that exist, it would probably be a good idea to think seriously about the geoengineering options.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
  Yeah, all of those things need to happen. And they all require massive investment. They also have a better chance of success if we significantly reduce fossil fuel usage in the meantime and extend the runway a bit. The debate matters because we don't have consensus as a society that climate change is occurring. The scientific consensus has been consistently and aggressively countered in the public sphere. The interests that have pushed the counter narrative do not push for action regardless of cause. They push for inaction, because action costs them money. If there was a societal consensus that global warming is a massive problem and we were pouring tons of cash into geoengineering, I'd be on board with your position. But we're not, we're still arguing about whether it's happening at all or whether it's enough to really be a problem or whether it's worth doing anything at all. The debate matters, and causality matters for establishing the facts in the debate.
  - mhb 1y ago
    I don't really have a position other than it doesn't matter if everyone believes that global warming is occurring and that it was caused by our activities. Even if everyone thought that, I don't think they would be willing to take any kind of hit to their lifestyles to address it. Are the people driving around in ridiculous giant SUVs and trucks and turning off the nuclear plants all not convinced that global warming is happening? I'm guessing they just think it will all work out somehow in the future. But I hope you're right.

mhb 1y ago

There is no chance this will be solved by convincing people to stop using fossil fuels. If you somehow were able to convince the Western countries, you're not going to convince China and the rest of world. The options are nuclear for baseline with solar and wind supplementing it. Or geoengineering. The cost will be astronomical and voters will not be happy to pay for it. Also, bizarrely, countries with nuclear have actually been turning off their nuclear. Given the incentives that exist, it would probably be a good idea to think seriously about the geoengineering options.

sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
Yeah, all of those things need to happen. And they all require massive investment. They also have a better chance of success if we significantly reduce fossil fuel usage in the meantime and extend the runway a bit. The debate matters because we don't have consensus as a society that climate change is occurring. The scientific consensus has been consistently and aggressively countered in the public sphere. The interests that have pushed the counter narrative do not push for action regardless of cause. They push for inaction, because action costs them money. If there was a societal consensus that global warming is a massive problem and we were pouring tons of cash into geoengineering, I'd be on board with your position. But we're not, we're still arguing about whether it's happening at all or whether it's enough to really be a problem or whether it's worth doing anything at all. The debate matters, and causality matters for establishing the facts in the debate.
- mhb 1y ago
  I don't really have a position other than it doesn't matter if everyone believes that global warming is occurring and that it was caused by our activities. Even if everyone thought that, I don't think they would be willing to take any kind of hit to their lifestyles to address it. Are the people driving around in ridiculous giant SUVs and trucks and turning off the nuclear plants all not convinced that global warming is happening? I'm guessing they just think it will all work out somehow in the future. But I hope you're right.