You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Catastrophic Climate Change

in #science2 years ago (edited)

I would not call it information war. Sure its central planners against freedom of choice, but both parties don´t know, their information is plain noise. Simply because they cant know. One can not even predict the trajectory of a double pendulum (and it has only two interdependent elements. The climate system has how many? ;D).


The reasoning behind AGW is that relation does not matter. A small change in input can cause a big change in out-put. Its non-linear. Yes, other CO2-Elements dwarf our output, but our output can easily trigger a change in the output of the Siberian traps and those traps than cause an serous change in the dynamics of the system (tipping elements).

ONE snowflake causes and avalanche ´, only one and in fact it could also be a butterfly, the system does not care. On the other hand, it could be as you described it, that emission of CO2 will be indirectly beneficial for us, then avoiding emission has a worse effect than pushing emission. Its undecidable and not an empirical problem. Its not about climate, its about economics. Its about convincing people to sell their new cars to Africa in order to buy a new electric car in order to stimulate economic growth. Pro-Climate effectively means more CO2, so why being mad at them?


"ONE snowflake causes and avalanche..."

No. One snowflake contributes one snowflake's worth to an avalanche. The apparent correlation with the snowflake and commencement of the avalanche is a classic cause for the misunderstanding many suffer. The scientific fact is that correlation is not causation.

Being mad at people deliberately lying to fool me is not wrong. The fact that extant climate propaganda cannot be true, for the reasons you point out, proves that competent scientists know for a fact it is not true, and that means they are deliberately lying. Deliberately lying for political purposes is basically the cause of information warfare.

Siding with liars, in any context and for any reason, will always bite you in the ass.

As to your example with the pendula, the reason we cannot predict it's movements is that our grasp of the forces involved is inadequate. It's not that those movements cannot be predictable. It's that we don't have the ability to predict it. Recognizing that difference is what separates science from faith.

Hubris is the curse of the ignorant. Humility enables science because it enables objective facts to be understood, and excludes faith.

At our present CO2 concentrations, plants are retarded in both growth rates and absolute productivity. I know this from experience because I have grown plants in CO2 boosted environments. Plants with more CO2 available not only make more food, they make more O2 for us to breathe, more water for us to drink, and stronger ecosystems to resist negative impacts of stressors from every source, including rapine centralized misdevelopment.

Yes, then those scientists are not scientific. They do research, research is not science. Research is lobby-confiscated, industrialized, highly regulated and consensus. Truth is not democratic.

At our present CO2 concentrations, plants are retarded in both growth rates and absolute productivity. I know this from experience because I have grown plants in CO2 boosted environments. Plants with more CO2 available not only make more food, they make more O2 for us to breathe, more water for us to drink, and stronger ecosystems to resist negative impacts of stressors.

They are perfect CO2 sinks, same goes for moor.

The problem you draw is the core problem of research. There are populations where we have to extract 50% of the wisdom teeth. The frame work is simply: There is no space for the teeth --> hence we have to extract them. This practice generates income. Hence --> the frame-work is accepted. Most diseases (same goes for ecosystems) could easily be transferred into another more holistic framework: teeth don´t fit because the jaws see no forces during childhood ...BUT this is no product, ergo this is where research ends.

How to solve the interdependence of science and seeing the world in a economic framework? guess its not possible. So how to make a sexy product from planting and saving CO2 sinks?

Across all industries technological advance is ongoing. Advance is always more decentralized, and decentralization always reduces centralization. Individuals gain greater power versus institutions. One of the recent developments in agricultural technology is aquaponics, the practice of growing aquatic species and using the wastewater from those tanks to fertilize other plant crops, reducing the waste in the water such that it can be reused for the aquatic species. With LED lighting, solar power, a cheap source of appropriate food for the aquatic species, nominal water, and good design, it is possible to grow all of the food an individual or small group requires, in very small space. Depending on nutrients, real estate, power, and water costs, this tech can provide all your food (and more) for almost no expense.

This tech is also able to be multiplied with other recent innovations, such as CRISPR, 3D printing, and ad infinitum, greatly extending the capabilities from mere foods, to pharmaceuticals, various useful materials, and security mechanisms, although there really is almost no limit to the conceivable uses these tech advances might provide.

These uses certainly include dentistry, for example. Basic tooling and entry level equipment for all aforementioned systems combined are well below 1% of the cost of a single family home. The greatest barrier to immediate and widespread adoption isn't poverty, but the terrible education most people have suffered in public school.

Classes in genetic engineering take a while to undertake, and cost a few to several hundred dollars, and similar classes for 3D printing and aquaponics aren't as readily available as are classes in using CRISPR from, but various free university level educational platforms are extant where suitable knowledge can be gained at similar cost, if not less. The educational materials aren't as much the problem as is the deeply indoctrinated aversion to learning modern public schools effect in people subjected to them.

However, the extraordinary beneficiality of gaining such a massive degree of individual capacity to produce bespoke and commodity goods and services as these technologies provide is nominal incentive for almost everyone to eventually undertake the expense and learning curve to gain those benefits. Large communities are presently adopting, developing, and improving the ease of use in all cases, and once the software is suitably developed to deploy such tech relatively autonomously, much of the educational burden will be removed, along with the physical labor necessary to keep such systems productive.

Software development is perhaps the key to viral dissemination of these systems, and each individual deploying any of them adds to the decrease in power of affected centralized institutions, such as corporations, governments, and financial networks, effected by all deployed systems, and exponentially increases the power of all individuals deploying them.

I expect that a century from now, money, government, and war will be obsolete. We will be an extrasolar species, availed of unimaginable wealth, and the vector for the dispersal of terrestrial life across the universe.

I can't imagine anything sexier.

thank you for your explanation, I have seen some courses at our university on plant modifacation and technology, probably I have underestimated the possible impact and should really look into it!

Early adopters undertake the most severe learning curve. If you enjoy learning, and want to advance the tech, have fun!

lol. they just pump & dump their broken economy once again. and then need market regulations to safe it. again. so why be mad at them?

exactly, of course they do, its just a Konjunkturprogram for European Industry, to extract more wealth from middle-class aka workers. The industry went very well after 2008, credit was cheap, demand was high, we pushed China through the roof, we pushed our economy through the roof but now every family has a car, many have two cars and lots of debt. And now? Not only Europes future is based on the employment of the middle class, which is based on self-directed-production.