Nut Nut's Attempt At A Book About Politics & Society
Dear Forum Members,
Over in the poker threads, they have members who blog about their poker experience. I've been wanting
Talk less and listen more. You know way less than you think and other people know way more than you think.
OK grizy .... let's put your confident assertion into the context of the scientific method which goes like this .....
Observation ==> Hypothesis ==> Experiment ==> Results ==> Theory
You present a hypothesis that I know less than I think.
What observational data do you have to support your hypothesis ?
How would you conduct an experimental to prove or disprove your hypothesis ?
From my standpoint, you would need to show that my assertions within this thread are incorrect. And in order for you to know that they were incorrect, you would have to know more than me.
Let's conduct the experiment grizy. The way one learns is to submit their work for review and have others demonstrate where they are wrong. If you can do that, I would be honored by your contribution.
If you are not able to compete for your hypothesis, I suggest that you STFU.
I'm listening to the experts and I've named them. Hansen, Sagan, Rockstrom, Francis, Rignot, etc....I'm regurgitating what they are telling the world.Who are you listening to ? What effort are you putting in to understanding the truth about where the feedback loops we have initiated are taking our species ?If other people know "way more" and are refusing to disclose it .... how
Looks like a good group of dudes.
Hansen literally advocated for a carbon tax that I mentioned and found him saying this....
“Hansen advocates a fee on all carbon-based fuels. He adamantly opposes a cap-and-trade approach and supports a fee and dividend system, which distributes all the revenues directly to the people, not the government, to offset increasing energy costs. This system would allow the free market to determine how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
Rockstrom is literally partnered with Unilever which wouldn't happen under your world.
You are making sound arguments about the climate but you sure has hell aren't regurgitating what they are telling the world.
You make good really good points about the issues with climate change, but then you go off the rails so damn bad about the solutions to solve them that it often makes me think that you're more concerned about destroying the economic system that you hate more than saving the planet.
it often makes me think that you're more concerned about destroying the economic system that you hate more than saving the planet.
Again ... you have your hypothesis about my motivation.
My hypothesis is that the current economic system is destroying the planet and that's the reason I want to dismantle the system.
How would you and I conduct an experiment to prove whether my hypothesis is accurate or not ?
I would simply ask the question .... what preventative measures does the current economic system have in place which regulates the amount of pollution such as GHG's and plastics are introduced to the environment ?
From a data standpoint, I don't believe you can provide evidence of any such enforceable regulation. But I'll give you the opportunity. The floor is yours .....
Edit: And what basis do you have for suggesting I hate the system?. Personally, it has led me to a place of economic freedom which allows me to do what I'm doing here. I'm one of the relative beneficiaries of the system. I was a Boomer at the easiest time and place in human history to become financially independent. I'm a lucky one.
NN, the experiment is already being conducted.
You believe that good science is the way through the Great Filter. If you’re right, then your science will be your ark and you won’t die.
Except your good science has hit a failure point, hasn’t it? This is called a reality check.
You believe that good science is the way through the Great Filter. If you’re right, then your science will be your ark and you won’t die.
.
I honestly don't know if we're already beyond the point at which human intervention has already become irrelevant. Near term human extinction may be unpreventable.
I'm not attached to the outcome, so much as the process of living authentically and in the interest of living in synch with my conscience.
I don't see the benefit in giving up and submitting to nihilism. I prefer to live with purpose and that's the way I'm going to roll.
I'm not representing my conscience as being a virtuous standard against which I measure others. I want just want to live comfortably in my own skin and I encourage others to do the same.
Looks like a good group of dudes.
Hansen literally advocated for a carbon tax that I mentioned and found him saying this....
.
For what's it worth, I think Hansen is a wonderful physicist and a moron as a politician.
That article is 11 years old. Hansen was a big supporter if Citizens Climate Lobby .... an NGO that caters to the political interests of old people who want to assuage their consciences about climate while doing nothing substantive. CCL is corrupt and engages in rampant propaganda about their purported effectiveness.
I honestly don't know if we're already beyond the point at which human intervention has already become irrelevant. Near term human extinction may be unpreventable.I'm not attached to the outcome, so much as the process of living authentically and in the interest of living in synch with my conscience. I don't see the benefit in giving up and submitting to nihilism. I prefer to l
Nihilism is like a necessary purge of all remaining coping mechanisms.
You’re right to not submit to nihilism, but ime, you have to allow the fullness of it to pass through you.
For what's it worth, I think Hansen is a wonderful physicist and a moron as a politician. That article is 11 years old. Hansen was a big supporter if Citizens Climate Lobby .... an NGO that caters to the political interests of old people who want to assuage their consciences about climate while doing nothing substantive. CCL is corrupt and engages in rampant propaganda about th
would you be willing to go in a bit of detail on why you think he is a moron as a politician? I've only spent a few mins but it looks like he is suggesting some of the same ideas that I posited earlier on in some other thread like taxing and regulating energy use towards sustainable levels and investing in green energy to actually make those procedures possible.
Because i've been told that the climate issue is #1. And that would mean that if we were to miraculously solve the climate situation to your standards under the current economic status quo, you'd be perfectly okay with that. Do you really think that you could fool me with that one?
Why The Name "Climate Change" is Stupid
Imagine you are a parent and you get a call from the Emergency Room that your child has been admitted in serious condition.
You rush to the ER and the nurse informs you that your child has Blood Alcohol Poisoning.
That's 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 the nurse told you that your child's diagnosis was BODY CHANGE.
It would provide you with no information whatsoever and you might be excused for being angry and wanting to punch the nurse in the nose for being so VAGUE and UNINFORMATIVE.
Who the f*** decided that "Climate Change" was the proper terminology.
If the Earth doctors like Hansen used the same convention as the medical community, we would all know this disease as something like ATMOSPHERIC CARBON POISONING.
So... while scientists like Hansen are really good at some things like explaining where we're headed, they suck at messaging to the general public.
would you be willing to go in a bit of detail on why you think he is a moron as a politician?
I'm attaching a video of a sting operation on two Exxon lobbyists captured by an undercover group sponsored by Greenpeace. They were pretending to be corporate recruiters and they induced the Exxon lobbyists to reveal their playbook.
At a little over 5 minutes into the video, Exxon lobbyist Keith McCoy explains why Exxon comes out and publicly supports a carbon tax just like Hansen. Because they know it will never happen.
Hansen is a scientist. I was a CFO for companies that paid Congress people to do what we wanted. I understand how things work. Hansen is a naive scientist. Politics is all about money. Physics is about other forces. Hansen is an expert in the latter, not the former.
if we were to miraculously solve the climate situation to your standards under the current economic status quo, you'd be perfectly okay with that.
The status quo is a Tragedy of the Commons where we treat the atmosphere as a free garbage pit for human industrial emissions.
The status quo is incongruent with solving the problem unless we can invent artificial photosynthesis, the natural process by which plants use the energy from light photons to convert environmental CO2 and water into carbohydrates.
The Magnitude of Change In Balance Between Plants & Animals
Most people know that humans breathe in oxygen for their metabolism and exhale CO2 in a process called cellular respiration.
The stoichiometry looks like this
C6H12O6 (glucose) + 6O2 ==> 6H20 + 6CO2 + energy
Plants do the opposite in a process called photosynthesis.
6CO2 + 12H20 + sunlight ==> C6H12O6 (glucose) + 6O2
The result was a harmony between plants and animals like ourselves.
What Changed From 1750
In the year 1750, there were ~ 800M humans. Each human exhales ~ 800 lbs of CO2 per year or 0.4 tons.
So the total human exhalation of CO2 back then was 0.32 billion tons.
Then we discovered how to use fossil fuels for energy.
The machines that use fossil fuels are like artificial animals because they also exhale CO2.
Today the human carbon footprint, including our artificial animal machines is ~ 40 gigatons per year.
That's an increase on one side of the equation of 130 !!!!. while on the other side of the equation the changes in land use are shrinking the Earth's plant mass.
So the balance has shifted by a factor of about 200.
A Piece of Ignorance I Must Acknowledge
Part of writing a book involves doing research about the experience of others. I confess that I am limited to the boundaries of my own sensory apparatus.
I don't understand the due diligence process by which others have reached different conclusions than myself about the trajectory of human civilization.
You all are the experts on your respective due diligence process. I want people to educate me as to how they arrived at their differing conclusions.
My hypothesis is that you haven't really done anything. But I don't have the data to confirm that. I am requesting that you provide data which outline how you investigated the issue and arrived at a conclusion that there wasn't a problem.
A Piece of Ignorance I Must AcknowledgePart of writing a book involves doing research about the experience of others. I confess that I am limited to the boundaries of my own sensory apparatus. I don't understand the due diligence process by which others have reached different conclusions than myself about the trajectory of human civilization. You all are the experts on your res
Whatever gets through the great filter lives on. Whatever gets through the great filter is true, since the aim is life, and truth is our subjective aiming mechanism.
Therefore, every belief, conclusion, etc gets thrown into the fire. Every identity gets murdered. Whatever is left over is true.
Socio-political schemes (like “eco-communism”) didn’t last through the death sifting process. Neither did the identity “smart person”.
Whatever gets through the great filter lives on. Whatever gets through the great filter is true, since the aim is life, and truth is our subjective aiming mechanism.Therefore, every belief, conclusion, etc gets thrown into the fire. Every identity gets murdered. Whatever is left over is true.Socio-political schemes (like “eco-communism”) didn’t last through the death sifting pr
That's a not so impressive deflection from the question that was posed.
I guess seeing that questions just sitting on the page begging to be answered was uncomfortable and you wanted to witch the topic ?
A Piece of Ignorance I Must AcknowledgePart of writing a book involves doing research about the experience of others. I confess that I am limited to the boundaries of my own sensory apparatus. I don't understand the due diligence process by which others have reached different conclusions than myself about the trajectory of human civilization. You all are the experts on your res
Back to the question ......
anyone want to take a crack ?
I tried but you call me immoral and a Satan every time I highlight to you how I rationally come to very different conclusions than you do.
and unlike others I do share your stated goal: the prosecution of my bloodline in time is indeed a major if not the only goal for the long term for me.
I already attempted to tell you science does not lead us to think anything even vaguely close to human extinction is going to happen because of climate change.
it's actually redicolous for me to write it especially when actual extinction risks are growing because of other technology (AI but not only that).
I don't know which part of "it's obvious that even at +5 Celsius significant parts of the world will be very livable for human beings" you disagree with. I don't know which models you are using to think Norway will be unlivable at +5 Celsius. or Siberia. or Chile.
the difference in average temperature between Minnesota and Florida is more than 10 Celsius. I don't know which freaking model you are using to claim that if Minnesota warms 5 Celsius and so it's still much colder than Florida is today, then human life in Minnesota won't be allowed.
it is so damn ******ed to claim that I really don't know how to address that other than "man, it's ******ed".
Part of writing a book involves doing research about the experience of others. I confess that I am limited to the boundaries of my own sensory apparatus.
I don't understand the due diligence process by which others have reached different conclusions than myself about the trajectory of human civilization.
You all are the experts on your respective due diligence process. I want people to educate me as to how they arrived at their differing conclusions.
My hypothesis is that you haven't really done anything. But I don't have the data to confirm that. I am requesting that you provide data which outline how you investigated the issue and arrived at a conclusion that there wasn't a problem.
the main due diligence is "which people are the source of the thinking process according to which we are all ****ed"?
when the answer is "systematically some of the worst people of society in the first world", then you already know, for a fact, it's all made up crap.
Then if you are interested into how and why exactly they are lying through their teeth like i am you dig deeper, otherwise you can already be satisfied it's all made up crap because the people peddling it are objectively horrendous people who always lie about everything on other topics and have moral values you completly abhor (=radical leftists).
Note with this i do NOT mean the "the world is slowly getting warmer" crowd. With this i mean the doomers crowd like you, the guardian, greta and her supporters and so on.
Also, there is literally no problem for which global socialism can be a solution, because global socialism would be worse than humanity exctinction. Life permanently lacking freedom is worse than death. That's a core value for me.
So even if you were perfectly right about everything (which obviously you aren't even tangentially) i would still prefer extinction that to give people like you any power at all.
Now how did i dig deeper, just out of curiosity, to understand exactly how wretched the minds of doomers are? well i checked the actual science. I checked the science i can understand the best, the economic side of it. And it doesn't say anything remotely or vaguely close to what you and the doomers say.
When you completly disregard the fate of people in poor countries (which i do, and that's a moral choice, not a scientific one), climate change isn't going to be a significant economic problem for fully developed countries. Leftism as usual can be though, predicated on the necessity of more leftism because of climate change.
It *already is* in europe. We are suffering horrendously because of leftist, climate change related policies already, far more than we would at +4 celsius. Without achieving anything at all for the climate ofc.
Nut Nut,
Here is the bottom line. You are not delivering your message in a way that makes people want to learn anything. Whether you are right or wrong, you are failing at the art of persuasion and driving engagement. And if you don't think at least part of that failure is your fault, you are wrong.
If you want more actual advice, here it is. Don't overstate the conclusions of the experts that you admire. Very few climate scientists believe that anthropogenic climate change will result in the complete extinction of human beings, especially on the time scales that you are imagining. An overwhelming majority believe that anthropogenic climate change is an urgent problem that will cause enormous human suffering. An overwhelming majority believe that this suffering will be borne disproportionately (but not exclusively) by people Luciom proudly does not care about.
You don't have to convince people of the most extreme scenario in order to convince people that urgent change is needed.
But if none of this makes sense to you, then by all means just continue calling people stupid cowards and telling them to STFU, etc., all while complaining that you are being subjected to ad hominem attacks.
Nut Nut,Here is the bottom line. You are not delivering your message in a way that makes people want to learn anything. Whether you are right or wrong, you are failing at the art of persuasion and driving engagement. And if you don't think at least part of that failure is your fault, you are wrong. If you want more actual advice, here it is. Don't overstate the conclusions
That's not what scientists say btw. Bold is literally false. What scientists say is that VS the counterfactual of no more warming, people will be worse off. They DO NOT SAY they will be WORSE OFF THAN TODAY.
If i predict your salary would grow by 2% a year because of climate change instead of the 2.3% per year it could have been if it is stopped (that is the prediction btw, the most dire 3 sigma scenario for the worst-off populations in the world), saying i am predicting "enormous human suffering" is beyond grotesque.
That's not what scientists say btw. Bold is literally false. What scientists say is that VS the counterfactual of no more warming, people will be worse off. They DO NOT SAY they will be WORSE OFF THAN TODAY.If i predict your salary would grow by 2% a year because of climate change instead of the 2.3% per year it could have been if it is stopped (that is the prediction btw, th
You can't possibly think this is a serious rebuttal to what I wrote.
It is. "growing incredibly well but a little less than what it could have been possible" isn't *causing enormous suffering*.
If i cause you enormous suffering, i make you a lot worse than you are NOW. That is , in english and any other language.
