Huh, it must be really frustrating to actually be a climate scientist.
@htimsxela why, because of governments misusing your work to push their agenda or of climate scepticist that won't listen what you have to say because they're overreacting to the brainwash? 😃
@Sosthene @htimsxela
This is something I *really* don't understand. Essentially all scientists agree that man-made climate change is real.
Yet there are a bunch of people (you too?) who (try to) deny that.
I 'understand' that the Koch brothers and fossil fuel cos want to try it as it affects their business interest
Effectively, I'm having a hard time seeing the difference between climate skeptics and anti-vaxxers.
Even if you're skeptic, do you disagree with Elon Musk and if so, why?
@Sosthene @htimsxela
Feel free to disregard the anti-vaxxers comment as it probably didn't help in establishing a useful discussion
@FreePietje @Sosthene
Oh, I certainly don't side with the skeptics, I'm astonished anyone could argue that dumping huge amount of GHG into the atmosphere won't have any affect. You don't need to perfectly model the environment to understand the physical chemistry involved.
Even if we don't know the outcome with certainty, a simple risk analysis would seem to favour extreme caution in the face of such an existential threat.
@FreePietje @Sosthene
My post was spurred by seeing various bitcoin social media stars on Twitter pigheadedly challenge the idea of climate change: it must be frustrating to be an expert in the field, and see the uninformed stating their opinions as fact.
The sort of free market libertarianism that many bitcoiners love is utterly ineffective in dealing with a tragedy of the commons of such scale. You can't privatize air, so I guess the next best thing is to just deny it? Very disingenuous
@htimsxela @FreePietje @Sosthene libertarians believe that you cant have a tragedy of the commons if property rights can be acquired and enforced.
@htimsxela @vbhide @FreePietje Statism is even more terrible. Now deal with it.
@Sosthene @vbhide @FreePietje
Thats a disheartening reply; I think there are reasonable ways that humans can work together to incentivize action so that we don't end up in a tragedy of the commons which is at the level of existential threat. Some of them are certainly more tyrannical than others, and I'm not an advocate for heavy-handed statism, but its foolish to just abandon all action 'because statism'. I really do think there are better options than that.
@Sosthene @vbhide @FreePietje
What those options are... I don't pretend to have the exact answers. But I understand the larger picture science (I've studied, and hold a degree in relevant fields), and it isn't really a question of "will this have an effect", its just a question of "what the effect will be". I think it is prudent to explore options, not just bury heads in the sand to avoid any possibility of political power-mongering over the issue. That too, can and should be addressed.
@htimsxela @FreePietje @Sosthene the framework is in place for libertarians (even for air pollution) https://mises.org/library/law-property-rights-and-air-pollution
@vbhide @FreePietje @Sosthene
This looks interesting, I'm going to give it a read later, thanks!
@vbhide @FreePietje @Sosthene
That is part of the issue: you can't privatize the air, libertarianism seems to very poorly suited to dealing with a tragedy of the commons at this scale.