121–130 of 144 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, i appreciate both types of deletions. If somebody feels they were just adding noise, Im very happy if they can reduce that noise.
I confess to using it under both circumstances at times. Sometimes you think you know…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is it your impression that scientists should be considered the paramount experts on climate change policy questions Yes. We should listen to people who use evidence and reason to suggest the best course of action. We should listen to people who have spent decades of their lives studying this issue for relatively little reward other than trying to make the world better. We should NOT listen to semi-literate goobers…
So your belief is that scientists are the people of evidence, reason, and selfless dedication to goodness, while policy people who are not scientists are incompetent and despicable? I don't know. Is such a black and white group based worldview plausible? It's possible I guess, but I find it hard to believe?
I wouldn't argue that all scientists are selfless that would be silly. I would argue that the average scientist is less selfish than the average politician, yes.
Examine the motivations. Few people go into pure science seeking power or money. Most or all politicians do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So your belief is that scientists are the people of evidence, reason, and selfless dedication to goodness, while policy people who are not scientists are incompetent and despicable? I don't know. Is such a black and white group based worldview plausible? It's possible I guess, but I find it hard to believe?
Decisions made based on science are more effective than those based on politics in almost 100% of cases. Especially when the subject of those decisions itself is science (the climate). I wouldn't argue that all scientists are selfless that would be silly. I would argue that the average scientist is less selfish than the average politician, yes. Examine the motivations. Few people go into pure science seeking power or…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i think we should be exploring all. carbon tax would be great, but currently seems politically impossible outside of Europe (and even challenging within)
You’re missing the point: if we can’t find the political will to implement solutions today, why would we find the political will to implement solutions tomorrow?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Decisions made based on science are more effective than those based on politics in almost 100% of cases. Especially when the subject of those decisions itself is science (the climate). I wouldn't argue that all scientists are selfless that would be silly. I would argue that the average scientist is less selfish than the average politician, yes. Examine the motivations. Few people go into pure science seeking power or…
That brings us back to the original question: does the science tell us what to do? Or is it your contention that the scientists tell us what to do, and whatever scientists say about a decision is presumably the right way to make decisions based on science?
It is not reasonable to ask IF the science should guide our actions. They only alternative is madness.
2025 was the third hottest year on record https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2026/01/14/...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you don’t know how to find scientific journal articles then you are too far behind for me to help with.
I do. My question is whether you are willing to share the justification for your claims with the room. By your own account, it is trivial, no? How long does a Google Scholar search take to pull up an article for a person such as yourself who is versed in the topic? And again, my question is: does the science show that this is objectively bad, regardless of bog standard policy considerations? For example, comparison w…
No, the science doesn’t show it is “objectively bad,” which is why I didn’t claim it was. I said it is not an idea endorsed by many climate scientists (which it’s not), and that’s mostly because of the numerous unknowns involved with perturbing a highly complex system, the expected irreversibility of many of its effects, and the path dependence of making us perpetually dependent upon dumping aerosols lest we risk a global climate snapback effect.
This is a summary of the current posture of the climate science community towards this idea, which is not “it is objectively bad,” nor is it something I can spend my time linking you to a singular paper on.
That is why my suggestion, from the very very top, was to get curious about why so few climate scientists support this idea for climate intervention.
Any good faith curious person should pretty immediately ask themselves this question to begin with.
It does not mean we need to listen to said scientists in and have them exclusively dictate policy, but if “climate community doesn’t like climate solution” doesn’t set off enough alarm bells for YOU to go open up Google Scholar, then you are not earnestly interested in the problem and your “just asking questions” approach here is actually just profound laziness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do. My question is whether you are willing to share the justification for your claims with the room. By your own account, it is trivial, no? How long does a Google Scholar search take to pull up an article for a person such as yourself who is versed in the topic? And again, my question is: does the science show that this is objectively bad, regardless of bog standard policy considerations? For example, comparison w…
That’s actually not the question that you asked, lmao. You can scroll up to see the question you actually asked. No, the science doesn’t show it is “objectively bad,” which is why I didn’t claim it was. I said it is not an idea endorsed by many climate scientists (which it’s not), and that’s mostly because of the numerous unknowns involved with perturbing a highly complex system, the expected irreversibility of many…
Here is an article by a climate scientist at Cornell and the head of a climate nonprofit, which is positive towards carefully scaled piloting of solar radiation management:
https://worksinprogress.co/issue/sunscreen-for-the-planet/
I am curious if you can cite an article that is responsive to the specific plans articulated here, especially the plans to help ensure safety by scaling slowly and gathering lots of data. Which is a normal practice in all reasonable policy rollouts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That brings us back to the original question: does the science tell us what to do? Or is it your contention that the scientists tell us what to do, and whatever scientists say about a decision is presumably the right way to make decisions based on science?
It is reasonable to ask "how should the science guide our actions?" I'm open to suggestions on the subject. It is not reasonable to ask IF the science should guide our actions. They only alternative is madness.