[FRIAM] Climate Change

[uǝlƃ ☣]

Although the sophist- ... icated tangent into groupthink and goodness of thought might be interesting, it's politically bankrupt, as is any sort of philosophical skepticism.

The problem is what to *do*, if anything.  I think Carl's post targets this most directly.  It seems to me our policy options are: 1) do nothing, 2) do something, 2a) treat the symptoms, and 2b) *attempt* to treat causes.  Doing nothing is just as much an action as doing something.  And if we choose to do nothing, then the we are still responsible for the consequences of missed opportunities to act.

Most people who agree that the climate is changing, regardless of the causes, also agree that it is the *poor* who will suffer.  Even in cities like Miami, the wealthy will be able to lose their homes, businesses, and local economy and simply move or retrain or retire, or whatever.  Similarly, in places like Syria, what's left of the privileged will be able to further exploit or move.  The rest will risk their lives trying to migrate.  It seems rather obvious that we have already agreed to actions of type (2a), even if the choice of actions (idiot Trump egging on Pakistan vs. many local churches in the US still willing to take in more refugees) isn't a consensus.

So, the question boils down to whether or not we engage (2b).  If a skeptical claim is that we simply don't know enough to act at all, then it's a reasonable point and that ignorance can be remedied by (2b) actions like education and research.  If, however, we admit that we *do* know some things that *might* help, then we have to engage in the RoI analysis to decide which (2b) actions to take.  I.e. regardless of the other option, (2b) ensues.  Option (1) begins to look pretty silly.

If the skeptical claim is used as sleight-of-hand to game the system into doing nothing, then it's no longer merely skepticism.  It's an existential threat to be dealt with as soon as possible and as harshly as possible.  And *that* is why most believers treat skeptics like narcissistic, exploitative, gamers ... because the reasoning seems to lead inexorably to the 2 options: a skeptic is either an advocate for more research and education *or* a scheming profiteer, regardless of whether climate change is human-caused or not.

Therefore, it seems reasonable for the (authentic) skeptic to apply herself to (2b).  Here is another resource that might be useful:

   https://www.earthsystemgrid.org/


>     On 30 December 2017 at 07:25, Carl Tollander <carl at plektyx.com <mailto:carl at plektyx.com>> wrote:
> 
>         I would rather,
>          than worry directly about the predictability of the climate models we currently have vs the population/variety/intitial conclusions of researchers from decades ago, 
>          that we instead consider a range of climate risks, their consequences,  our responses/adaptations, and their consequences.
>         The latter may prepare us, and it moves that portion of the science along in any case, and may yet eventually show up any deficiencies in the former, but let's get underway.
> 
>         Personally, I'm with Lovelock on the large grain future: the window of action gets progressively smaller the longer we delay, and that the world will likely experience
>         a "massive reduction in carrying capacity" (that's a euphemism) over the next century.    Looking at older cultures and how they survive, mutate, die or flourish in analogous upheavals (e.g. mid-8th-century China or black-death eras in  Europe) might be worthwhile at this point. Start by assuming the fan/speed/blades and what/who hits it; what can/should we DO?  We should at least perhaps understand when we are waiting too long to begin adaptations that are cheap, safe, economic or politically acceptable, for Nature bats last.
> 
>         Hope y'all like mosquitoes. 
> 
>         カール
> 


-- 
☣ uǝlƃ