Nut Nut's Attempt At A Book About Politics & Society

I think there is a lot of room to criticize climate scientists. But blaming them for their carbon footprint isn't exactly the path I would take.

If I wanted to criticize climate scientists ..... I would hammer them on their messaging. I explain that by way of analogy.

Imagine you got a call from the emergency room. Your teenage child is in critical condition so you race straight to the hospital. When you arrive, you are taken into a consultation with the attending doctor and they tell you that your child has blood alcohol poisoning.

That gives you a lot of information.

Blood is the location of the poison.

Alcohol is the name of the poison.

Poisoning is an unequivocal declaration of dangerous toxicity.

Imagine instead that the doctor told you that your child has body change. That's so vague that it doesn't tell you anything. You might be tempted to punch the doctor in the face for such an uninformative explanation.

Climate change is vague and uninformative. It doesn't tell the public anything. But climate scientists all understand that it refers to the consequences of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions which are primarily carbon based (CO2 and CH4 are 90% of the problem).

If climate scientists (Earth Doctors) used the same naming convention as medical doctors, they would call the disease something like Planetary Carbon Poisoning because too much carbon is being transferred from solid reservoirs into the atmosphere and oceans. Carbon in the atmosphere and oceans is just like alcohol in the blood. A little bit is OK, but a lot is poisonous.

I want to punch climate scientists in the face for their vague and uninformative messaging.

That's not what I'm saying. Reread what I said.

I'm not talking about critcising climate scientists. I'm talking about condemning them for being cowards for not calling out their scientific colleagues working for Exxon etc.who are the ones making the ghg bombs. They're the weakest link in the casual chain. And if what they're doing is literally killing us as the climate scientists claim, they shouldn't have a problem figuratively killing them.

But they're not doing that. Instead the cowards deflect blame: it's the profiteers or the politicians or worse the people who are to blame. You're just playing into their narrative blaming the people. You're trying to ultimately convince cowards to do the right thing. They won't unless you make the alternative - like becoming a social pariah - worse.

And the bigger high profile climatologists the better. Same goes for Tyson. If he truly believes what he says, he should be out in the high schools and colleges telling kids not to go to work for the companies who are making the gas they're using in the gas chambers. But he won't unless the alternative is worse, like a bunch of college kids calling him a coward for not doing so.

As I said, if they really believe what they're saying about the future consequences of ghg emissions and nothing else is working... shaming the people making the ghg bombs is pretty low impact considering the consequences.

That's how you curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Which term has more resonance with you ?

A) Climate Change

B) Planetary Carbon Poisoning

option B is uneccesarily alarmist.I applaud your concern about climate change. just be glad you don’t know what I know. Ignorance is bliss.

On a scale of 0-100, the value of your comment is 0.

No information whatsoever beyond your unsubstantiated point of view.

Neither. They're both horrible titles or headlines. As I told you a few months back:

Seems like you have absorbed the predicament pretty well.

Nut Nut, in theory this thread is basically about helping you write your book. You have a lot of great thoughts but a lot of the nit picks of those thoughts are valid and some genuinely helpful. Instead of taking people who disagree with you as enemies, you are smart and you are well intentioned, but you don’t know everything. I do know things about this issue that you are unaware of. you’re welcome for helping you.

I don't think the frustration around this issue comes so much from what we don't know. Instead it's from the lack of concern from what we do.

With modern technology, we could probably live a 1950's lifestyle working only 10 hours a week, because that's all the labor and narural resources we'd need to produce those living standards.

At the end of the day, curbing greenhouse gas emissions means curbing our appetite for consumption beyond what we actually need to live long, enjoyable lives.

I'm not omniscient. I'm very open minded to the possibility that others have insights to contribute which might expand my awareness.

So go ahead Bryce ..... the floor is yours to reveal what you know. No need to be mysterious and engage in one upmanship. This isn't a dick measuring contest.

Feel free to contribute something other than a testimonial to your ego.

Spacemen? Contacted or probed? I think we'd see a black hole heading our way.

I have no ego like you are describing. That was a thoughtful post offering help. I have engaged in no oneupsmanship and certainly without question have no interest in a dick measuring contest.
This message is one of extreme immaturity against someone trying to help. Are you twelve? nothing like the things mentioned in your post entered my mind. You need to acknowledge how immature you’re being.

Bryce always has secret info that he alludes to without ever saying what it is. Very hush-hush.

I have never alluded to knowing about something I don’t actually know about.

I often learn things that are best kept private.

Oh, all-righty then.

This cracks me up.

"I know something secret so I'll tell you that I have a secret but I won't tell you what the secret is".

Spoken like a true 6 year old.

Or like someone who knows a lot. and is more comfortable alluding to truths rather than say them straight out by my natural personality.

The idea that I have a big ego or want to have a dick measuring contest is so the opposite of my actual personality that it makes communication difficult. I hate talking to guys with big egos and especially guys who are big into “dick measuring contests”. I wouldn’t talk to someone like that so how are we going to have a productive conversation about climate change if you typecast anyone who doesn’t massage the exact point your making as someone they’re not?

I like you , and want to have a productive and harmonius conversation about an issue I care about going forward but you should drop the constant insults.

I know something secret Bryce ..... harmonious has two "o" 's in it :-)

If you want to have a productive conversation ....... feel free to begin by sharing something relevant of value. You've yet to do that and no one is stopping you.

John,
That’s the thing, you can’t really understand the complexities of the climate change issue without sustained effort in trying to solve the problem. Just knowing climate change exists is like claiming to have a deep knowledge of the game of go because you’ve heard about the white and black stones and encirclement strategies. You can’t actually begin to know anything about go without sustained effort from actually playing.

You have a tendency to do this when others post their takes on the subject. Maybe you have a little bit of forgetfulness, but you've mentioned a few times that I should state my opinion on a particular matter after I have already done so more than once. Personally, I think you've got some good takes and some outlandishly horrible ones but when others voice their opinion against one of your more atrocious stances, I think it would behoove you to be a little more mindful of it rather than to just ardently reject it.

That kind of reflexive defensiveness, or the inability to entertain criticism or self-reflection, is exactly the sort of mindset that fuels so many of the problems we see in the world. And unfortunately, that personality trait seems to be growing - and so are a lot of problems.

I know enough that it seems stupid to risk the consequences over what amounts to 7-8% of our GDP. Transitioning to renewables would cost 3-5% of our GDP. Big wow. Did you know that?

I’m not keen on revealing whether I do or do not know that at the moment. I’m confident I’m not legally obligated. Nevertheless, I look forward to a continued spirited exchange of ideas on this very important issue.
I think we could agree the post I made that you responded to is epistemologically correct and would look good tucked away somewhere in a coffee table book about climate change, the exact kind of book I think nut nut wants to write.

“Vee have vays ov making zee talk.”