That's not what we are talking about. We are talking about being able to cancel the activity "onChain" which you can't.
-16 karma · joined August 6, 2021
And this part is actual science: “for the discovery of the interplay of disorder and fluctuations in physical systems from atomic to planetary scales”
In the US we have positive credit score meaning you have to show you are a good lender to get a better score.
The european ones are mostly much less granular.
The only thing that matters is what can be scientifically demonstrated, not just speculated. From that make your own assessment.
Using fossil fuels is saving more lives, in fact it's making it possible for billions of people to live today. That wouldn't be possible without fossil fuels. In fact most of us wouldn't be here.
99% of all the products you take for granted are using fossile fuels.
Medicin, contact lenses, paint, textiles, electronics, windmills, solar cells, concrete, asphalt, heavy machinery, most industrial manufactoring, all types of lubricants, plastic, mining, food production and I could go on.
If you like living you are going to need most of the above. In fact if it wasn't for fossil fuel usage the likely hoood of you being alive let alone as rich as you are today would be very small.
Energy is the industry that powers all other industries. You make that more expensive you make everything more expensive which means more people go hungry, less people can afford medicine, food production becomes more expensive and more people will die. It's really that simple.
If you really believe we can do without all these things I would urge you to live without anything that has been made possible by fossil fuel industry for a month. Then you will realize just how live giving fossile fuel actually is.
Anyone who wants to actually understand what the IPCC is finding should go read the actual report and they will find just like all the other IPCC reports that things are not even close to what the media and environmental organizations want you to believe, in fact, the IPCC reports are getting less concerned not more and you will find there is a lot more uncertainty with a lot of metrics.
There is no scientifically demonstrated consequence of climate change we don't know how to deal with today let alone in 80 years from now. Yes the use of fossil fuel have externalities, some of them negative luckily most of them positive.
1. All choices have consequences. The choice to not use combustion engines would have meant that most of us would not be alive, we wouldn't have the internet or 99% of all the things we take for granted today. The use of combustion engines have positive and negative externalities. The positive far outweighs the negatives. The problems we have to deal with because of our use of combustion engine are better problems to have than those we had before the combustion engine was invented.
2. Said no one ever. Coming up with better alternatives that pollute less is an ongoing project humans have been involved with since the combustion engine was invented.
The issue is when there is no better alternatives and inferior solutions like wind and solar (which btw cannot be created without fossile fuels) is pushed as a better solution even though it means less reliable energy supply. It's one thing to solve with something like fusion or nuclear but what we are seeing currently is creating worse not better problems because it's trying to solve something it can't solve.
3. Humans have the potential of solving any problem they encounter with enough knowledge. There is no guarantee though and the history of the world is that 99.9999% of all species went extinct, but the fact that we can come up with something like a combustion engine makes us able to potentially solve the problems the climate have always presented us with.
With regards to wind and solar. No, just know, even in principle it can't be a better solution. It's simply a question of physics and energy density.
For some things it's great but it's unreliable and completely depending on the weather which means that we have to create backup systems of coal, gas, oil and nuclear to deal with it just as we are doing today which only makes the entire sytem more complex, less reliable and more expensive.
So lets get alternatives to fossil fuels as fast as possible, but they have to be better not worse in terms of reliability, price and scale.
We also know that to be true historically.
Climate itself varies over time. So to the extent that permafrost is time specific speculation it's not really useful for anything.
The only thing I worry about is to which extent the current hysteria ends up pushing catastrophic political decisions which will kill millions of people not in 80 years but today. Trying to push for alternatives to oil, gas and coal when there is no real contender besides nuclear is going to make everything much more expensive.
When everything becomes more expensive it means people can afford less. This will especially hit the poorest. So when faced with that kind of choice I choose.
Combustion was done in the way it was because it solved a problem which was much bigger than the ones it created. The problem of how to make combustion engines cleaner is a much better problem to have than coming up with a reliable, clean and plentiful energy resource.
You most certainly wouldn't be around and the internet certainly wouldn't if it wasn't for combustion engine freeing up time for humans to focus on other things than just surviving.
So again. I am unconvinced by the revisionist historical logic at display here. The world is like it is for a reason the combusting engine have saved many many many many more lives than it's taken.
You don't have to choose between my forecasting or the climate models you just have to understand how models work to realize that you aren't being as critically thinking as you might think you are.
The models are trying to predict based on various factors, CO2 being one of them. If you were correct all you are really saying is that the models could be much simpler than still be precise. So on that alone it seems like you are missing the point.
Second of all, while most agree human activity have some correlation with temperature rise we have no actual idea how much. There is no scientifically demonstrated percentage of the temperature that can be attributed to humans.
With regards to the permafrost. This is pure speculation and in many ways relies on the accuracy of the models and doesn't take human ability to deal with it into account. It might be bad it might not, regardless we can't stop living the way we do just because there is some percentage risk of bad outcomes.
We should always take the climate seriously but so should we any other event like astroids hitting earth, super vulcanos, nearby super novas, pandemics etc. The world is always and have always been filled with dangers which is why 99.99999% of all species ever existed are extinct way before humans were around.
I would urge anyone who gets worried every time they see these kind of headlines based on modelling, to spend some time reading about how modelling and prediction actually work to understand what is really going on.
Any critically thinking person should take notice when you only hear about how the models have been underestimating the severity even though they are constantly wrong both ways.
Yes the temperature is changing, no it's not something we can't handle.
Why do you think we've done the things we've done? Why do you think we build houses, have conventional farming, create sewer systems, create water purification systems, drive cars, have electricity, heat our houses, fly, have heavy industry, run global supply chains, combustion engines, aqua farming, nuclear power plants, create hospitals, going into space, send up satellites, develop new medicin, use fossil fuels not just for energy but also for 99% of all out materials and material creation? Your phone, the internet, your computer, glasses, windows, airconditioning.
If nature provided us with alle these facets naturally we wouldn't have to create them ourselves but as we both know it doesn't. We have to create these solutions our selves. We have to create our own resources by creating knowledge.
And yes this process have negative externalities. Each problem we solve, create new problems we also need to solve. But the difference is that the problems we are facing today are better problems to have than those we used to have.
Trying to come up with a way to make energy cleaner is a better problem than not having energy to begin with.
Trying to deal with plastics in our oceans is a better problem to have than not having access to plastic materials.
We have better problems to solve today than we used to and when we solve them they will create new problems that are again better problems to have. That should make you hopeful not pessimistic.
No amount of veganism, recycling or spartan living is going to change that.
On the other hand, having a positive look at the future and participate in the economy is going to help pay for much of the research we need to help come up with more powerful forms of energy.
We need wealth to create knowledge which helps create solutions to some of the issues that the climate has always been challenging us with just like we've done before.
Having a positive look at the future is exactly what we need and have nothing to do with utopia, it's just a better framework to think about the world and lead to better results than thinking the world is going to go under.
You should find solitude in the fact that we might be the only species who actually have a chance of not becoming part of that statistic which we do by making the planet much more hospitable for us than life used to be. We do this by creating new knowledge which we then use to turn useless materials into valuable resources which allow us to solve problems that have always been challenging us.
So go on live your life, eat, travel, create, consume. Don't worry about the catastrophist rhetoric, don't worry about going vegan (unless you want to), don't worry about your CO2 footprint or any other things other people want you to care about for their own political ideologies.
Be optimistic and worry about living a good life, with good people, doing good and meaningful things and if you have the skills maybe get into something valuable like coming up with how to create more powerful energy forms such as fusion.