Nut Nut's Attempt At A Book About Politics & Society
Dear Forum Members,
Over in the poker threads, they have members who blog about their poker experience. I've been wanting
in which planet, in which dictionary, in which language can you find expressions that define "exceptional improvements of current conditions but lower than the absolutely theoretical optimum" as suffering?
if you halve mortality rates but you could have reduced them by 55% you are *causing suffering* how exactly?
The topic is "what scientists actually say about the effects of climate change on the world in the future".
Nut nut as (i hope? ) we all agree, lies outright and grotesquely exaggerate what scientists say in a way that is completly out of whack.
Rococo pointed that out (with softer words), but in doing that, he STILL exaggerated a lot what the models say.
The models DO NOT SAY that people in bangladesh will be worse off than today in 2100. By far.
The models (done by economists, not climatologists who have no skill nor expertise to say anything about how the changing climate will affect human life) say that depending on a lot of assumptions and given some total amount of emissions from now to then, they plausibly predicts things to still be awesome for bangladesh, just a tad less than they think they could be if there were fewer accumulated emissions.
Which means than even doing absolutely nothing at all for emissions would still mean every country is a lot better off in 2100 than today, and that's what scientists confidently claim ok? that's the baseline of "no action".
Completly disregarding emissions worldwide would STILL MEAN that we improve human quality of life, dramatically. That's what science says. Is that the message you hear around?
That's because of the power of compounding economic growth obviously (for us), but most people don't intuitively understand how insanely good for humanity it is to have compound economic growth.
So the pro science crowd should be the crowd telling people "don't worry, unless we wreck the economy life is going to improve for everyone, by a lot, regardless of the climate". That's what science says, which would require people to understand that the only thing that matters above all, and more than anything else combined by a large margin, is to grow the economic as much as possible (per capita). Everything else is insignificant in comparison *INCLUDING CLIMATE CHANGE*.
And that's not "my opinion", that's the objective scientific overwhelming consensus of all published models.
He has to be deliberately missing the point. Neither I nor any reasonable climate scientist would presume to predict whether (or to what extent) people in Bangladesh will be better or worse off in absolute terms in 50-100 years.
The answer to that question involves a million variables, many of which have nothing to do with climate change.
When people say that rapid climate change will cause immense suffering, they obviously are making a comparison to a world in which climate change is less rapid and other variables are more or less equal.
They are not purporting to be making an absolute comparison based on a model of every variable that could significantly affect the world.
He has to be deliberately missing the point. Neither I nor any reasonable climate scientist would presume to predict whether (or to what extent) people in Bangladesh will be better or worse off in absolute terms in 50-100 years. The answer to that question involves a million variables, many of which have nothing to do with climate change.When people say that rapid climate cha
It isn't climate scientists that do that in fact. It is economists. Climate scientists have no skill, no professionality, no ability at all to have ANY CLUE about human quality of life in any context. Their opinion on the topic is utterly worthless, their expertise is completly different. Even interviewing them on the topic would be to completly give up on science.
Economists instead are the only professionals who, as a job, model effects on quality of life quantitatively.
The bold would be utterly absurd to model as reducing emissions isn't a free exercise. It's a costly one. With costs that, for europe, canada and the uk, are already far higher than the best benefits model would tell you we can gather in 2100.
Ie we *already paid more in the last 20 years* than what in the best case scenario we are avoiding in damage in 2100.
And keep in mind *all models* structurally underestimate our ability to cope with events. 2070 technology will on average be far better than today technology, so it will VERY PROBABLY be far easier and cheaper to reduce emissions then, or do capture then, or mitigate climate change negatives then.
So all models , which are already claiming that life will be far better in 2100 even with unrestricted climate change, are already exaggerating the negatives necessarily. We cannot model technological advancement other than in generic gdp increase even if we know there are very high chances of several breakthroughs that will make reducing emissions, reversing CO2 in the atmosphere, and dealing with a warmer world, far far easier.
nut nut
A couple of questions for you.
1. Have you considered a blog as opposed to a book?
2. In your head, have you roughed out an abstract/summary of your book. (The theme, what topics are raised, what you propose to prove and/or advocate for, who might be interested in your book, etc?)
3. How will your book differ from others already published that are addressing the same or similar thesis?
4. This discussion (the early part - the preamble, if you will) got me thinking about Guns, Germs and Steel - The Fates of Human Societies [/B](Jarod Diamond). Just curious if you (or anyone in this thread) have read it?
I'm just waking up from a long sleep.
All of these responses have me thinking of a new title .....
The Question People Won't Answer
Not a single one of you will explain the process by which you evaluated data and arrived at the conclusion that climate change won't destroy human civilization.
I told you that I read the papers by the economists whose models are used by the IPCC and they don't expect that
Nut Nut,Here is the bottom line. You are not delivering your message in a way that makes people want to learn anything. Whether you are right or wrong, you are failing at the art of persuasion and driving engagement. And if you don't think at least part of that failure is your fault, you are wrong. If you want more actual advice, here it is. Don't overstate the conclusions
Hi Rococo,
Appreciate your sincere attempt at honest feedback.
Bottom line ..... very few people want to learn anything unless it puts money in their pocket or a sex partner in their bed.
You're correct that I'm not doing well at persuading people. Not so correct about driving engagement. The audience here is totally triggered.
As far as the extremeness of the scenario .... I'm not going to lie to people ..... there have been 5 mass extinctions that scientists have documented in the last 450 million years. We're following the model of those mass extinctions.
Earlier, I mentioned the scienctists Van Westen & Rahmsdorf as the experts on the AMOC (Atlantic Meridonal Overturning Circulation)
Van Westens latest study indicates > 50% chance of AMOC stoppage this century for the first time in 13,000 years.
This article speaks to how that would cool Bergen, Norway by 27C due to lack of heat. That's goodbye to Norwegian people.
So, raising the global temperature by 2-3C doesn't raise it equally everywhere.
Triggering people without persuading them isn’t that different than throwing a tantrum.
Put differently, mocking you isn’t engaging you or your ideas. It’s just laughing at you.
Nut nut...
The audience is about 4 people and i think ive responded more than anyone else and i can assure you that i enjoy the conversation. It isnt a big deal. Maybe Rococo is triggered but your threads have been mostly vacated.
But again, the climate issue is a serious problem. I dont think ive made a post stating otherwise. Its just that your solutions on how to handle it are both incredibly interesting to read and seem to possibly be the worst way to go about actually creating that sustainable world. But that is just the opinion of a random on the internet. Which isnt a big deal either.
Maybe you could summon Wazz back in here.
I told you that I read the papers by the economists whose models are used by the IPCC and they don't expect that
The IPCC is a UN institution.
The member governments put the IPCC findings through a conservative filter which leads to more benign findings.
The IPCC has been through 6 major iterations. AR6 is darker than AR1. The conservative bias is obvious.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downl...
The link above is to the latest IPCC AR6 summary release in 2023
B.2 For any given future warming level, many climate-related risks are higher than assessed in AR5, and projected long-term impacts are up to multiple times higher than currently observed (high confidence). Risks and projected adverse impacts and related losses and damages from climate change escalate with every increment of global warming (very high confidence).
Climatic and non-climatic risks will increasingly interact, creating compound and cascading risks that are more complex and difficult to manage (high confidence).
The bolded section above is their acknowledgement of their conservative bias from one report to the next. The future is turning out to be worse than IPCC predictions.
The IPCC is a UN institution.
The member governments put the IPCC findings through a conservative filter which leads to more benign findings.
The IPCC has been through 6 major iterations. AR6 is darker than AR1. The conservative bias is obvious.
that's your opinion.
you asked why I came to the conclusion the danger isn't even remotely as high as you claim, I answered that.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downl...The link above is to the latest IPCC AR6 summary release in 2023
Climatic and non-climatic risks will increasingly interact, creating compound and cascading risks that are more complex and difficult to manage (high confidence)
(This is a statement coming from a conservative group which has historically understated the risks)
When the IPCC declares in AR6 that many climate risks are greater than stated in AR5, they are acknowledging that the AR5 was too conservative.
For those who don't understand the IPCC process .... it's a UN institution established in the 1990's and they have been through 6 major reporting cycles which are ~ 6 years in length.
The 2023 final report was based upon research inputs through ~ 2021. We've had 4 years of new developments since then, many of them dire.
1) The CMIP6 climate models have been released ..... much more bearish than CMIP5 due to higher resolution related to cloud cover.
2) Hansen has released his Global Warming in The Pipeline,
3) Massive ocean temperature spike in 2023
4) Two warmest years on record - 2023 & 2024
5) Van Westen paper on AMOC collapse
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downl...The link above is to the latest IPCC AR6 summary release in 2023
Read the above extract from the latest IPCC AR6 Summary Lucifer and tell me what you read.
I want to test your reading comprehension.
Those are interesting adjectives they use .....
Compound and cascading risks
(and these are the conservative folks whose statements have to be filtered through governments who don't want to frighten the public into disorder)
Nut nut...The audience is about 4 people and i think ive responded more than anyone else and i can assure you that i enjoy the conversation. It isnt a big deal. Maybe Rococo is triggered but your threads have been mostly vacated.But again, the climate issue is a serious problem. I dont think ive made a post stating otherwise. Its just that your solutions on how to handle i
I grasp that the solutions seem drastic.
They only make sense to someone who sees the situation as being as dire as I do.
If you don't see eye to eye on the WHY, then it's unlikely to see eye to eye on the necessary solution.
Logically speaking ..... I confess that I think human civilization is toast. Spiritually and primitively speaking .... I can't quit on my kids.
This is the first time in human history where there are more apocalyptic prophets outside of religion than within it.
There are probably more apocalyptic prophets alive now than the total amount throughout human history.
This is the first time in human history where there are more apocalyptic prophets outside of religion than within it.
There are probably more apocalyptic prophets alive now than the total amount throughout human history.
that's only true if you don't want to define leftism as religion.
if instead you recognize Marxism (and all it's derivatives) as a millenarian cult everything makes much more sense.
This is the first time in human history where there are more apocalyptic prophets outside of religion than within it.
There are probably more apocalyptic prophets alive now than the total amount throughout human history.
I don't think "prophet" is the word you are looking for.
A prophet proclaims to be anointed by or know the will of God. A prophet is by definition, a religious figure.
People who offer scientific hypotheses are not prophets, they are simply engaging in the scientific method.
