|
StabbinHobo posted:the false dichotomy that you made up in your head to argue against, because other than the occasional drive-by poster being an edgelord no one is actually arguing that. Nah, I don't think so. The name of this thread is literally "We're all going to die and it's your fault", which is tongue and cheek but really does reflect the way a lot of people think about this. "RCP4.5 is a whole hell of a lot better than RCP8.5" shouldn't actually be a controversial statement, but it is here, because you guys read it and your brains filter it to "ok everythings gonna be fine".
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 16:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 19:49 |
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:"RCP4.5 is a whole hell of a lot better than RCP8.5" shouldn't actually be a controversial statement, but it is here nobody is disputing that, they are disputing that rcp 4.5 is "mild" or that we shouldn't be concerned because it's not 8.5 its amazing how incapable you are of understanding this beyond that, people should be concerned, it is a dramatic thing that's happening and it does pose an existential risk to every human on the planet. what value is there to be gained exactly from telling people to "calm down, it won't be that bad". Is this some kind of backdoor way to come about to "the reason we don't take action on climate change is because of alarmism"? 90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 16:21 on May 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 16:18
|
|
|
self unaware posted:nobody is disputing that, they are disputing that rcp 4.5 is "mild" or that we shouldn't be concerned because it's not 8.5 I didn't say "RCP 4.5 is mild" in the sense of being balmy and serene. I contrasted it to the worst-case scenario and referred to it as "on the mild side", referencing the fact that it's the second-lowest emission of the four RCP scenarios.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 16:25
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I didn't say "RCP 4.5 is mild" in the sense of being balmy and serene. I contrasted it to the worst-case scenario and referred to it as "on the mild side", referencing the fact that it's the second-lowest emission of the four RCP scenarios. mild is simply an inappropriate word to use when talking about a 2.5c change by 2100. this along with you championing "lukewarmism" and siding with a right winger who thinks capitalism will solve climate change just calls so much of what you're saying in to question (and i know you're not an idiot like Arkane, why you're defending him is beyond me) again, what purpose are you serving exactly? just arguing for arguments sake? what action could we be taking that we aren't? being less worried? that seems pretty irrelevant to the problems at hand imo all the obsession with data and RCP misses the bigger picture, which is that most of this is incredibly uncertain. but the potential risks are catastrophic. so telling people "calm down, it will only be rcp 4.5, we'll be fine" 1. is an absurd prediction to make at this time and 2. completely ignores what happens after 2100 and leaves it as a problem for the future to figure out we're heading over a cliff in car and you're telling the people shouting "hit the breaks as fast as we can" that "we're already slowing down, only half of us will die if we go off that cliff at the right angle, why are you so being so dramatic?" last edit the earth's systems are non-linear in many cases and while we don't know where the tipping points are exactly, we do know they exist and it's another reason to err on the side of caution 90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 16:35 on May 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 16:28
|
|
|
It's interesting how TL treats anything anyone says that might be (even just technically) incorrect as 100% serious and representative of the overall consensus and level of discourse ITT, but when confronted with his own inflammatory statements he makes every effort to defend them, going from "I'm not wrong" to "I didn't say that" and "maybe it was poor choice of wording but you're misrepresenting" or "I'm technically correct." Really gets you thinking.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 16:37
|
|
|
self unaware posted:mild is simply an inappropriate word to use when talking about a 2.5c change by 2100. this along with you championing "lukewarmism" and siding with a right winger who thinks capitalism will solve climate change just calls so much of what you're saying in to question (and i know you're not an idiot like Arkane, why you're defending him is beyond me) Well, no, I don't want to sit here at loggerheads forever arguing about whether the word "mild" is appropriate and never discuss how we're going to advance mitigation and adaptation. Do you have a solution? Most of the people in this thread seem to want to talk about the big picture issues, like whether we can keep aviation, or whether we can have kids, whether civilization is going to collapse and where they should flee to when they inevitably become a climate refugee. I would definitely like to get into more technical discussion of climate policy, impacts, decarbonization, etc. but my feeling is that these issues will just keep coming up again and again.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 16:39
|
|
|
self unaware posted:all the obsession with data and RCP misses the bigger picture, drat you legitimate science! why won't you reflect what my heart has decided is true!
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 16:41
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Do you have a solution? nope, haven't made any posts with any ideas self unaware posted:you don't need to ban beef, air travel, cars, coal, oil or natural gas self unaware posted:a carbon tax self unaware posted:https://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate_change self unaware posted:quite simply there is no hope for the future until our economic systems appropriately price the externalities of our economic system. admittedly that would be one of the most disruptive changes possible to our system, but it's change or die at this point. we needed a carbon tax 50 years ago and we need it 5000x more now self unaware posted:i love that the technofetishists are unable to comprehend that the problem isn't individual carbon contributions and more the attitude that we shouldn't do anything to fix it, like add a carbon tax. which would make flying more expensive. which would largely fix the problem with a large enough tax self unaware posted:Sounds like we need to add a carbon tax so flying more accurately reflects it's cost to the environment obsession with data also brings you this: Owlofcreamcheese posted:drat you legitimate science! why won't you reflect what my heart has decided is true! people who don't understand how uncertain these models are but are willing to use them to bludgeon people even though the models and data themselves don't agree with what they are saying (mostly because people look at the 2100 temperature as the endgame for climate change mitigation) there are legitimate scientists writing legitimate papers that completely disagree with the thrust of your argument. read james hansen
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 16:41
|
|
|
self unaware posted:nope, haven't made any posts with any ideas Not what I meant. quote:people who don't understand how uncertain these models are but are willing to use them to bludgeon people even though the models and data themselves don't agree with what they are saying (mostly because people look at the 2100 temperature as the endgame for climate change mitigation) No, I think he's exactly right there. What you see as getting "bogged down in the data" I see as "figuring out what the actual effects of climate change will be". What you see as "the bigger picture" I see as "an ideological grand narrative". Of course you are not wrong that there is a great deal of variability, but just saying there's variability doesn't mean anything unless you quantify and contextualize it. You can't just intuit your way to an understanding of climate.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 16:54
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:No, I think he's exactly right there. What you see as getting "bogged down in the data" I see as "figuring out what the actual effects of climate change will be". What you see as "the bigger picture" I see as "an ideological grand narrative". Of course you are not wrong that there is a great deal of variability, but just saying there's variability doesn't mean anything unless you quantify and contextualize it. You can't just intuit your way to an understanding of climate. I'm not intuiting my way to an understanding of climate, the fact that there is variability DOES MEAN SOMETHING. The level of certainty is important. Given the level of uncertainty and the range of impacts, it makes sense to err on the side of caution. That means taking more aggressive mitigation steps than the ones outlined by RCP 4.5 because we don't necessarily know that our actions will end us there but we do know that if we underestimate the consequences would be vastly more impactful compared to overestimating. There's no ideological grand narrative. I've read books by scientists, I've read papers by scientists, I've read more of the IPCC than any human probably should, none of that has made me any less concerned that we're underestimating the potential impacts and that we have a societal blind spot when it comes to dealing with "super wicked" problems like Climate Change. Thug Lessons posted:Not what I meant. pray tell, what do you mean? 90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 17:13 on May 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 17:01
|
|
|
Sure, none of the RCPs deal with tipping points in regards to clathrates or permafrost melt, and they deal poorly with other issues we've found to be increasingly important like fugitive methane emissions and illegal CFC production, but don't let that stop you from treating them as the end-all be-all of climate science! You can't say you're engaging with the data when you're literally only discussing what are known to be conservative projections, and in bad faith at that, I guess when you aren't signal boosting wattsupwiththat.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 17:09
|
|
|
self unaware posted:I'm not intuiting my way to an understanding of climate, the fact that there is variability DOES MEAN SOMETHING. The level of certainty is important. Given the level of uncertainty and the range of impacts, it makes sense to err on the side of caution. That means taking more aggressive mitigation steps than the ones outlined by RCP 4.5 because we don't necessarily know that our actions will end us there but we do know that if we underestimate the consequences would be vastly more impactful compared to overestimating. There's no ideological grand narrative. I've read books by scientists, I've read papers by scientists, I've read more of the IPCC than any human probably should, none of that has made me any less concerned that we're underestimating the potential impacts and that we have a societal blind spot when it comes to dealing with "super wicked" problems like Climate Change. Well, we definitely should. But we don't seem to be doing so. Paris isn't enough to keep below 2C and we're not even meeting Paris. So even if we're worried about variability and risk, we still have to consider and study where the path we're currently on is going to put us. I'm not telling you we can only talk about the mean, but we can't ignore it because we're worried about uncertainty. In any case though, if you've really got all this knowledge, then put it to use. If you want to argue that RCP4.5 is too dangerous to be contemplated because of x impacts, y variability in modeling and z tipping points it threatens to cross, great. I would love to see arguments like that. But you're not even mentioning any of this stuff. You haven't listed a single specific impact, source of variability or tipping point in the past five posts. You're talking about levels of certainty. Which ones, what metrics, and what is the level of certainty? It's impossible to argue with you because all you're willing to provide is vague generalities.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 17:21
|
|
|
Are you really going to make me list out all the potential tipping points or 'unknowns' not mentioned in the IPCC like you think I don't know? I know you know, I know you know I know. Why are you doing this?
90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 17:25 on May 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
I'd certainly like you to list some of them, so that I can understand what your worries are and don't have argue against the concept of levels of certainty, abstracted from any actual impact. I see CTA there is listing permafrost and methane clathrates, and I think we have good reason to not be terribly worried about those.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 17:28
|
|
|
Impacts on ocean currents (jetstream, thermohaline circulation), disintigration of the western antarcic ice sheet, biome shift in the amazon, ocean anoxia, weakening of the marine carbon pump, ozone depletion, etc
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 17:32
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I'd certainly like you to list some of them, so that I can understand what your worries are and don't have argue against the concept of levels of certainty, abstracted from any actual impact. I see CTA there is listing permafrost and methane clathrates, and I think we have good reason to not be terribly worried about those.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 17:32
|
|
|
from what i understand the point needed to melt clathrates is pretty far past where we are now, even in rcp 8.5 terms. granted, if they do melt im pretty sure it's game over essentially permafrost melting might not be more significant than human contributions but it's still a problem that we can't really "stop" now that it's started and it's impacts go beyond "adding co2 and methane to the air" you're talking about an incredible amount of habitat loss and probably extinctions
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 17:34
|
|
|
self unaware posted:Impacts on ocean currents (jetstream, thermohaline circulation), disintigration of the western antarcic ice sheet, biome shift in the amazon, ocean anoxia, weakening of the marine carbon pump, ozone depletion, etc Okay, now plug those into the point you're making about variability and tie it into the RCP4.5 scenario. Then you'll have an actual argument that's possible to evaluate.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 17:37
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Okay, now plug those into the point you're making about variability and tie it into the RCP4.5 scenario. Then you'll have an actual argument that's possible to evaluate. gently caress off, im not plugging anything in. I'm not a climate scientist or a mathemagician. even if I tried I'd gently caress it up and you'd pillory me over that the argument is perfectly possible to evaluate, go read about all of the things i listed. one thing will become clear, we don't know. there is no data to punch in because we simply don't have it. that's what you don't understand about uncertainty. we do know that if any of those things happened it would be an unmitigated disaster, god forbid multiple of them.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 17:39
|
|
|
twodot posted:This is an interesting bind, are you saying permafrost and methane clathrates are the only tipping points you are aware of, or that you aware of other dangers and you are just forcing other posters to come up with them because acknowledging you know about them would be bad for your position? What do you want me to do, dude? Make their argument for them?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 17:41
|
|
|
self unaware posted:gently caress off, im not plugging anything in. I'm not a climate scientist or a mathemagician. even if I tried I'd gently caress it up and you'd pillory me over that You're exaggerating. There's scientists all over the world evaluating the potential for crossing those tipping points and it's possible to discuss it and draw conclusions a bit more concrete than throwing up our hands up and saying "we don't know anything". But more to the point, no, your argument about uncertainty does not hold up when abstracted from actual climate science. Okay, sure, now we're terrified of uncertainty around tipping points. That immediately begs a whole host of questions: how likely are these tipping points? How much warming do we likely need to cross the threshold? What can we do to stop it? How can we study them in the future to improve our understanding of the above? All the questions you don't want to answer because of some aversion to getting your hands dirty.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 18:00
|
|
|
They're questions we can't and won't have the answer to. We don't have a lab to test what happens to the thermohaline circualtion. It takes an earth to accurately model it. Coming up with a best guess and saying "well, this is the best guess, let's just use this number moving forward" is a terribly strategy. Unless there's a degree of confidence there's no point in factoring it in. There is no way to use numbers to accurately model these sorts of systems (yet). The problems are too big and too complicated. We deal in abstractions. Abstractions that we know are not entirely accurate.quote:how likely are these tipping points? How much warming do we likely need to cross the threshold? What can we do to stop it? all of these are good questions to ask, but given that we don't know the answers, what is the best action moving forward. it seems like your argument would be "wait until we have better numbers" whereas my argument is "the potential risks associated with this event is so dire that we should aggressively reduce emissions EVEN IF we aren't sure it's required". Can I tell assuredly that the WAIS will collapse at 2c of warming? No. Is it possible? Absolutely. If our best science says it's probably around 2.5C I would still argue we should use the lower estimate in order to buffer for potential unknown unknowns. We can't orchestrate some kind of global coordinated response where everything happens to plan over the next 80 years. We need to think about long term resiliency, not creating the ideal amount of warming over the next 80 years. I just want to know, what exactly are the risks in implementing an aggressive carbon tax that's redistributed to the poorest members of our society? And yes, I realize this won't fix the "global" problem and that it's just the US (even if we did that) and it puts us at a massive competitive disadvantage. What I'm telling you is that all of that is worth taking dramatic action to potentially prevent some of these catastrophic events that would effectively end modern civilization as we know it. We need to lead globally. Also, fyi, the reason people are so pessimistic is because the paragraph above simply isn't happening. The socioeconomic systems at play do not seem capable of dealing with the problem. Maybe we'll hit some magical political tipping point, but given that we just elected a climate change denier in 2016 I don't have much hope for America, and I imagine most others don't as well. you can argue that the political problems should be kept seperate from the climate problems, but again, this is a wicked problem and we need to approach the problem holistically, not by getting the best numbers possible and punching them into a machine so we know exactly how many gigatons of carbon we can emit before the seas swallow Tokyo 90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 18:11 on May 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 18:07
|
|
|
This thread moves too fast for me to really engage in the arguments but I wanted to say that I thoroughly enjoy reading the discussion. I may not necessarily agree with TL's assessment of the risks but I definitely appreciate his/her willingness to engage and offer actual scientifically derived data to at least have something concrete to debate. Also the general lack of stupid name-calling is a nice relief.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 18:27
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:What do you want me to do, dude? Make their argument for them? That's not a bad idea. All you ever do is tone police the thread, so how about you talk about the likelihood of the RCP scenarios and the known unknowns in them that concern you?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 18:45
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:You're exaggerating. There's scientists all over the world evaluating the potential for crossing those tipping points and it's possible to discuss it and draw conclusions a bit more concrete than throwing up our hands up and saying "we don't know anything". But more to the point, no, your argument about uncertainty does not hold up when abstracted from actual climate science. Okay, sure, now we're terrified of uncertainty around tipping points. That immediately begs a whole host of questions: how likely are these tipping points? How much warming do we likely need to cross the threshold? What can we do to stop it? How can we study them in the future to improve our understanding of the above? All the questions you don't want to answer because of some aversion to getting your hands dirty. Like, those tipping points, the whole idea behind those is pretty much that you have a highly complex non-linear system - precisely the kind of system it's really loving hard to determine the likelihood of outcomes for because the tiniest change can be the difference between nothing much happening and the system shifting into an entirely different equilibrium. Sure, you could probably come up with numbers if you wanted to, but you have no way of knowing if those numbers are realistic, or pure garbage because there are effects you're not accounting for, not accounting for correctly, or not even aware of in the first place. Climate change is a textbook case for using the precautionary principle - extreme levels of potential harm coupled with significant uncertainty.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 18:47
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:What do you want me to do, dude? Make their argument for them?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 18:50
|
|
|
He's never changed his mind or argued in good faith; argue with him for the benefit of anybody still watching, or just put him on ignore like the rest of us did a long time ago.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 18:54
|
|
|
reactionary analysis paralysis
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 19:00
|
|
|
Will be fascinating to read AR6, and see people here try to grapple with it. AR5 was less alarmist than AR4, which was less alarmist than TAR -- and AR6 will continue that trend. Climate models are still running too hot (even with the recent El Nino, which only brought it to the model-mean), climate sensitivity was way too high in AR5 model runs (averaged 3.2C ECS, recent studies point far lower), and the RCP 8.5 carbon emission scenarios look like a joke with the explosion of renewables and electric vehicles since AR5 and the tapering off of emissions growth. As of right now, you're going to see an across the board lowering of projections with the tag-on effect of lowering estimates for sea level rise. And yet this thread lives in an alternate reality of ever-increasing alarmism and despair, with the occasional psychotic Thanos character instructing the assembled masses that we need to start killing people off.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 19:10
|
|
|
self unaware posted:They're questions we can't and won't have the answer to. I don't agree. We don't have definitive answers, but that's not uncommon in science. Even the climate science we have the most confidence in, like CMIP, has huge ranges and variation. The IPCC hasn't assigned confidence levels to literally everything, but that doesn't mean they don't provide any answers or are somehow worthless. The rest of this post seems to arguing for what's sometimes called the precautionary principle. And sure, at least in principle I agree that we should consider extreme scenarios in our policy guidance and we should be aiming for the least-risky options, even if the best fit requires less mitigation. But you said it yourself, "The socioeconomic systems at play do not seem capable of dealing with the problem". I question how much you're really accomplishing by focusing on unquantified uncertainties, ratcheting up the terror, and relying on this to somehow bring about a tectonic shift in climate policy. And more than that, this exclusive focus on the most terrifying uncertainties completely drowns out the impacts we can quantify. We have some idea on how rainfall patterns are going to change, how surface temperature is going to change, and how these changes are going to translate into direct economic and societal impacts. We can look at sea level rise and see who's definitely going to be underwater, who's got to be worried, and who can be cautiously optimistic. We're lurching towards a >2C world, and it's completely irresponsible to focus almost entirely on the scariest, least-understood aspects to the detriment of problems we a) know exist and b) need to solve. I actually agree completely with the characterization of climate change as a wicked problem or even a super wicked problem. That's exactly how I approach it. But what that means is that it's so fiendishly complex that it actively resists any straightforward attempt to tackle it, and that there are no right and wrong solutions, only better and worse. You're not revealing the problem by pointing first and foremost to the uncertainties as "the big picture", the stuff we should really care about. You're mystifying it further.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 19:16
|
|
|
twodot posted:I wanted you to answer my question, are you very ignorant of this subject or are you using question asking as a rhetorical device to avoid uncomfortable truths? No, it's totally fine to be completely ignorant on a subject. For example, I know literally no Hindi. That doesn't make me a bad person, just not a person that should be talking about Hindi. This is like asking me if I've stopped beating my wife. I am neither ignorant about tipping points nor am I "asking questions as a rhetorical device". He started talking about tipping points, didn't specify which, and I gave the perfectly reasonable response of "which tipping points?"
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:The rest of this post seems to arguing for what's sometimes called the precautionary principle. And sure, at least in principle I agree that we should consider extreme scenarios in our policy guidance and we should be aiming for the least-risky options, even if the best fit requires less mitigation. But you said it yourself, "The socioeconomic systems at play do not seem capable of dealing with the problem". I question how much you're really accomplishing by focusing on unquantified uncertainties, ratcheting up the terror, and relying on this to somehow bring about a tectonic shift in climate policy. Just to be clear, that's not what I'm doing. I'm not trying to 'ratchet up terror' and i certainly don't expect my posts in this thread to bring about a tectonic shift in climate policy. I'm just discussing climate change with (mostly) like-minded peers. Focusing on unquantified uncertainties is exactly what leads to the precautionary principle. quote:And more than that, this exclusive focus on the most terrifying uncertainties completely drowns out the impacts we can quantify. We have some idea on how rainfall patterns are going to change, how surface temperature is going to change, and how these changes are going to translate into direct economic and societal impacts. We can look at sea level rise and see who's definitely going to be underwater, who's got to be worried, and who can be cautiously optimistic. We're lurching towards a >2C world, and it's completely irresponsible to focus almost entirely on the scariest, least-understood aspects to the detriment of problems we a) know exist and b) need to solve.[ I'm not focusing on them entirely though? They are just a big part of the blind spot when you attempt to adhere to data above all else. The data just isn't that good. The systems are very complex. Even our best guesses aren't great. Maybe we have this gut reaction to trust the science because of how anti-science the right is, but this is not about denying reality to keep burning carbon, it's about being extra careful with the carbon we do emit because there are unknown unknowns. quote:I actually agree completely with the characterization of climate change as a wicked problem or even a super wicked problem. That's exactly how I approach it. But what that means is that it's so fiendishly complex that it actively resists any straightforward attempt to tackle it, and that there are no right and wrong solutions, only better and worse. You're not revealing the problem by pointing first and foremost to the uncertainties as "the big picture", the stuff we should really care about. You're mystifying it further. I'm not mystifying anything, I'm talking about the reality of the science. Ignoring things we don't know much about to focus on the little data we do have seems way more harmful than being precautionary about the things we're not sure of. 90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 19:23 on May 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 19:20
|
|
|
self unaware posted:Just to be clear, that's not what I'm doing. I'm not trying to 'ratchet up terror' and i certainly don't expect my posts in this thread to bring about a tectonic shift in climate policy. I'm just discussing climate change with (mostly) like-minded peers. Focusing on unquantified uncertainties is exactly what leads to the precautionary principle. I think you're painting a huge amount of science, on a wide variety of topics spanning multiple disciplines within climate and geophysical science, with a blanket "not that good". And since you refuse to quantify any of this or discuss the literature any particular tipping point so we could evaluate whether it's really as bad as you say, we've sort of hit a wall here. You've made your point: the uncertainty of climate science is enough that we should limit warming <2C. I don't even disagree. I don't think we'll achieve that, but as I said, it's not an incorrect conclusion in principle.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 19:37
|
|
|
self unaware posted:
The poorest people have the lowest carbon footprint. Pretty much across the board. Helping them would make solving climate change harder, not easier. We should help people not be poor because they deserve food and water and houses and heat and stuff, but getting them that and solving climate change is going to be accepting a heavier burden than not helping them and will increase the chance of failure. (which again, we should still do it, if it turns out the only way to save the earth is to have a bunch of starving perma-poor then yolo, guess we die in a hundred years, but it will make it harder)
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:This is like asking me if I've stopped beating my wife. I am neither ignorant about tipping points nor am I "asking questions as a rhetorical device". He started talking about tipping points, didn't specify which, and I gave the perfectly reasonable response of "which tipping points?" self unaware posted:last edit the earth's systems are non-linear in many cases and while we don't know where the tipping points are exactly, we do know they exist and it's another reason to err on the side of caution
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
twodot posted:No this is not a reasonable response, this was the post: You're reading a whole lot into my posts that isn't there.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 19:44
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:You're reading a whole lot into my posts that isn't there.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 19:54
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The poorest people have the lowest carbon footprint. Pretty much across the board. Helping them would make solving climate change harder, not easier. giving the money to poor people just ensures the carbon tax isn't regressive, it's not the method by which we solve climate change. what solves climate change is properly pricing externalities into existing markets (or destroying those markets and replacing them with a system that does)
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 20:06
|
|
|
self unaware posted:giving the money to poor people just ensures the carbon tax isn't regressive, it's not the method by which we solve climate change. what solves climate change is properly pricing externalities into existing markets (or destroying those markets and replacing them with a system that does)
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 19:49 |
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:No matter what people read into your posts, it's still true that specific data on tipping points probably aren't particularly relevant to any discussion for systems that are not adequately understood. Which basically just leaves the question; do you believe climate science is at a point where we know enough to act on climate change based on climate modelling alone? Honestly I find this baffling. Do you really believe the actual science on tipping points has little to no relevance to a discussion of tipping points? Every single one of them?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 20:10
|
|