Global warming may have already passed irreversible tipping point

[PC2]

Science or as you put it brainstorm is dependant on funding you dont allocate funding afterwards

That doesn't make sense. How can you fund a solution before the idea has been brainstormed/created?

and simply hope for a good turnout

Hope is all we can have when it comes to progress and innovation. It's impossible for there to be a known and deterministic method for guaranteeing a good turn out in the future.

[Bakis]

That doesn't make sense. How can you fund a solution before it has been brainstormed/created?


Hope is all we can have when it comes to progress and innovation. It's impossible for there to be a known and deterministic method for guaranteeing a good turn out in the future.

Take a step back and think like this, for every step of progress we do there are a ton of avenues that came to a dead end.
This should be evident if you look as a simple thing as tech industry's or medical research budgets for example.

[PC2]

Take a step back and think like this, for every step of progress we do there are a ton of avenues that came to a dead end.
This should be evident if you look as a simple thing as tech industry's or medical research budgets for example.

What is the point you're making? How do you think civilization is going to evolve over the next century? (As it relates to the topic)

I just don't understand what your claim means for us and the prospects of humanity.

[Bakis]

What is the point you're making? How do you think civilization is going evolve over the next century? (As it relates to the topic)

I just don't understand what your claim means for us and the prospects of humanity.

I explained the point of how progress(inovation in this case) works, you just dont grasp it.

[PC2]

I explained the point of how progress(inovation in this case) works, you just dont grasp it.

You could elaborate on how it works, then I'll have a better grasp of it. You probably just think progress is about politics and getting what you want from that arena.

[Bakis]

You could elaborate on how progress works, then I'll have a better grasp of it. You probably just think progress is about politics and getting what you want from that arena.

This is what you wrote. Literally thats not how invention, science is driven forward. The funding is in it from start not the end after a brainstorm.
Do you think putting a man on the moon, or developing covid vaccines, mobile phones what have you is the result of a few good ideas each of them having 50 ideas that turned out to be a dead end along with them. Which require funding in the whole process not some hippie "this looks promising, now lets put some cash to it".

If we want to beat climate change then people have to brainstorm and propose solutions. After that we work on funding the most promising ones.

[PC2]

This is what you wrote. Literally thats not how invention, science is driven forward. The funding is in it from start not the end after a brainstorm.
Do you think putting a man on the moon, or developing covid vaccines, mobile phones what have you is the result of a few good ideas each of them having 50 ideas that turned out to be a dead end along with them. Which require funding in the whole process not some hippie "this looks promising, now lets put some cash to it".

Okay but where is your point going? From your perspective what is the best way to proceed from here?

[Endus]

That doesn't make sense. How can you fund a solution before the idea has been brainstormed/created?

Because if you don't fund the brainstorming and development, that idea isn't stillborn, it's never even conceived.

The reason for the rapid pace of technological innovation over the past several centuries is pretty much entirely down to the funding of innovation as a process. Which means application of funding to those who can engage in brainstorming. No longer did society sit around waiting for a random genius to emerge into a perfect storm of wealth and opportunity.

[Bakis]

Okay but where is your point going? From your perspective what is the best way to proceed from here?

Twofold, the rate of spreading information about climate change need to seriously speed up to change the mindset of the large portion of people/industries who doesnt feel the urgency. Along with that heavily increased funding.

(this was a super quick and sloppy explenation, (I'm in OW) and I'm no expert. Would like to add legislation on the list as well)

[Endus]

Twofold, the rate of spreading information about climate change need to seriously speed up to change the mindset of the large portion of people/industries who doesnt feel the urgency. Along with that heavily increased funding.

The inherent problem is that any short-and-snappy infodump about the threats will inevitably get shouted at from the cheap seats by shitmongers who've bought the corporate oil propaganda; anything sufficiently short to catch the attention of random people is necessarily going to have to cut corners in terms of complexity and depth, which the shitmongers inevitably frame as "lies", because they're lying shitheads and they have no valid counter-point.

And any attempt to get around that by discussing the issue properly and we're talking a 10-part miniseries of hour-long episodes or an entire college class or the like to get a handle on the very basics of the issue. And the average person is gonna bail on that after the intro.

Frankly, the best response might be to engage in short-and-snappy rhetoric that gets to the important messaging, while simultaneously and proactively flipping off the shitmongers before they open their stupid, stupid fucking mouths. The Jon Oliver bit with Bill Nye was a pretty solid example;



37 seconds. Says what it needs to.

Nobody's convinced by shit like Gore's An Inconvenient Truth; that's pablum fed to those who're already on board. Which is why the shitmongers will crap on it every chance they get. They STILL bring up Gore. It falls right into that "not entertaining enough to hold attention, skimpy enough on detail to give the shitmongers a target to fling their poo at" range.

Shorter, snappier, and more pre-emptively insulting to the idiots out there. They're never gonna be convinced to change their minds, the best we can hope for is that they get shamed back into their caves and go back to leaving everyone else the fuck alone.

[PC2]

Twofold, the rate of spreading information about climate change need to seriously speed up to change the mindset of the large portion of people/industries who doesnt feel the urgency. Along with that heavily increased funding.

(this was a super quick and sloppy explenation, (I'm in OW) and I'm no expert. Would like to add legislation on the list as well)

That's great as long as it's not just about increasing government funding.

- - - Updated - - -

The inherent problem is that any short-and-snappy infodump about the threats will inevitably get shouted at from the cheap seats by shitmongers who've bought the corporate oil propaganda; anything sufficiently short to catch the attention of random people is necessarily going to have to cut corners in terms of complexity and depth, which the shitmongers inevitably frame as "lies", because they're lying shitheads and they have no valid counter-point.

And any attempt to get around that by discussing the issue properly and we're talking a 10-part miniseries of hour-long episodes or an entire college class or the like to get a handle on the very basics of the issue. And the average person is gonna bail on that after the intro.

Frankly, the best response might be to engage in short-and-snappy rhetoric that gets to the important messaging, while simultaneously and proactively flipping off the shitmongers before they open their stupid, stupid fucking mouths. The Jon Oliver bit with Bill Nye was a pretty solid example;

[video=youtube;IFgBFYkBZ6E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFgBFYkBZ6E[video]

37 seconds. Says what it needs to.

Nobody's convinced by shit like Gore's An Inconvenient Truth; that's pablum fed to those who're already on board. Which is why the shitmongers will crap on it every chance they get. They STILL bring up Gore. It falls right into that "not entertaining enough to hold attention, skimpy enough on detail to give the shitmongers a target to fling their poo at" range.

Shorter, snappier, and more pre-emptively insulting to the idiots out there. They're never gonna be convinced to change their minds, the best we can hope for is that they get shamed back into their caves and go back to leaving everyone else the fuck alone.

Eh, it seems like you are being overly meta here. People have genuine disagreements and it takes time to work everything out. People need to have patience and it seems you in particular need to take a chill pill because you're using a lot of expletives even though they're unwarranted...

[Bakis]

People have genuine disagreements and it takes time to work everything out. People need to have patience(...)

People might have disagreements or the bord of directors humping profits. However when it comes what we face and what our current progress will lead to, the science community is not in disagreement.
There might be disagreement on how to best tackle climate change in various niches but thats just healthy for scientific work. There is no disagreement on what happens if we continue at this pace.
Something drastic need to change and not in 10 years, while waiting for x amount of average joes. That is time we dont have.
And climate change is such a hugely complex and global issue that a naive mindset such as Necessity is the mother of invention can fly out the widow.

Time for me to take a nap after an allniter. Good night

[PC2]

There is no disagreement on what happens if we continue at this pace.

Good. Continuing at this current pace we have right now would mean even more progress which is a good thing.

[Nastard]

"I like it when my throat cancer becomes more aggressive. It means at my current pace of dying I'll have even more progress at finding a cure which is a good thing. I only wish it was even faster spreading so progress would be swifter, but there's only so many cigarettes I can smoke to assist."

[Bakis]

Good. Continuing at this current pace we have right now would mean even more progress which is a good thing.

My point as I expressed is that the current pace is nowhere near the pace needed. So it's not a good thing.

[Endus]

Eh, it seems like you are being overly meta here. People have genuine disagreements and it takes time to work everything out.

When it comes to the state of the global climate?

There is no "disagreement" among reputable scientists. Claiming otherwise is like claiming there's "disagreement" over whether the Earth is flat. The science on this was worked out better than a half-century ago.

People need to have patience and it seems you in particular need to take a chill pill because you're using a lot of expletives even though they're unwarranted...

This is empty tone-policing. I'll curse if I fucking want to. And you can put up with it.

And given that, to quote Bill Nye, "the world's on fucking fire", I'm comfortable asserting that expletives are warranted.

[cubby]

That's a rough global temperature spread over the important eras on Earth, in terms of life, at least. You'll note we're still in the blue, even with anthropogenic warming; the dividing line there is "does the planet have ice caps". The entire Quaternary Ice Age, so the last several million years, is that low point right before it kicks up to "today"; humanity has only ever existed within the Quaternary.

If we spike up to even the Eocene maximum, that's a global average some 20 degrees Fahrenheit (around 11C) higher. That's warm enough that the temperatures would kill humans if you're outside in the tropics. Hell, we already hit similar heat waves; anything north of about 105F can get deadly. You get a bit more leeway in dry climates, but in humid climates, that shit will kill you if you have to deal with it long term.

And that's without pointing out that we'd lose the ice caps. That's about 230 feet of sea level rise. This isn't something we can just handle. Earth would become nearly as hostile to human life as, say, Mars, just in vastly different ways.

And for those not paying attention, when the ice caps melt and the sea levels rise 230 feet, Earth loses 33% of human civilization's current habitability. Imagine what would happen to the United States if/when 109 million people need housing, and at the same time, we lose literally all our shipping ports.

Oh, and for fun, at the same time, we lose our crop growing ability in the midwest because of drought caused by global temperature rise.

[JohnBrown1917]

"I like it when my throat cancer becomes more aggressive. It means at my current pace of dying I'll have even more progress at finding a cure which is a good thing. I only wish it was even faster spreading so progress would be swifter, but there's only so many cigarettes I can smoke to assist."

If you go any further, PC2 will really take up smoking

[Shadowferal]

'Tornado Alley' is expanding: Southern states see more twisters now than ever before


The big bad of my dreams....

[muto]

I don't get it. Do you understand that your Car, Phone and PC and the infrastructure that makes us able to post here are still oil products?

Shhh don’t tell the Californian’s driving their Lithium-Ion Tesla’s that! They couldn’t bear to know how much diesel is used (mining equipment/ship) to make one battery, or how much earth is moved (mining equipment).