47 sats \ 33 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 9 Sep \ on: Green Socialism: Trapped In The Apocalyptic Cult econ
Is climate change not a threat to humanity and the planet?
It seems most of the science suggests we do have a rapidly changing climate and that this change could has very serious consequences for human civilisation.
I just don't get the libertarian bravado that denies the science.
Record temperatures globally breaking all previous records each year.
Ice caps and glacier melting at an accelerating rate.
Sure there will be extremists within all sides of the debate but seems like there is a real problem and that human cause climate change is a real thing.
you should separate the so-called scientists paid by the states from the free science. the decisive factor for our climate is solar activity and not the CO2 emitted by humans. But this is a deep debate
reply
Private enterprise is notoriously poor at funding pure science where many of the significant discoveries are made which then deliver economic advantages. Yes many state funded scientists might be constrained in their work by political considerations but I find it difficult to believe they have as a whole deceived with the overwhelming evidence that human caused climate change- primarily from burning fossil fuels is now causing considerable increase in the global temperature.
Unprecedented rising sea temperatures have now been recorded and unprecedented warming is now occurring. Solar activity has always varied in intensity but the scale of warming now is not attributed to solar variations by any of the mainstream science I have seen.
Yes it is a hugely complex debate with questions such as should nuclear be used more to replace fossil fuels an example where political views are highly influential.
Peter Thiel has argued that the decision was made to curtail increased nuclear power utilisation when India were assisted to build nuclear power plants by the US but then quickly went on the build nuclear weapons from those reactors. It was realised it is almost impossible to enable nuclear power without the consequence of nuclear weapons going to that nation as well.
Humans have surely demonstrated too many times our potential for brutality and warring to ignore such dangers.
One thing is sure IMO - human caused climate change is real and is a huge potential threat to us all- we need to at least take a cautious approach if the planet is to avoid getting fried.
This should ideally be an issue where we can unite out of common interest, not another point of division...but fossil fuel lobbyists have serially sought to sow doubt, obfuscation and confusion despite the known science and that dangerous, deliberate and disingenuous misinformation needs to be firmly rejected.
reply
It will be interesting to see how much is spent on public science once we're on a bitcoin standard. The current funding is entirely dependent on the money printer running at full speed, so without that will people be willing to shell out their hard earned sats for it?
reply
The Bitcoin Standard is not inconsistent with the idea of state funded investment. El Salvador demonstrates this if you really need an example. Any understanding of science and economy shows state funding of pure science has driven major advances in the productive economy and private enterprise does not often fund pure science so an educated and informed public would generally support taxation to fund science.
The Bitcoin Standard does not have to result in an end to taxation and collective economic progress...
Climate change is a crisis which demonstrates very clearly the need for people to be capable of action beyond the crude imperatives of free markets. Climate change demands agreement and consensus to act in the common interest and that's is perhaps why it is denied by more extremist libertarians.
reply
Do you think taxation is enough, or will the money printer also be needed to solve such a big and important problem? The US spent $1.7T more than it collected in taxes in 2023. That's a pretty big difference. How's that going to work when they can't print money anymore? It will be difficult to pay for green new deals and whatnot.
reply
reply
Agree fiat money hegemony has corrupted the US politics, economy and society.
USA consumes far more than it produces except that it can and does print the global reserve currency.
Quite likely that the rest of the world soon stop accepting that as sustainable in fact its already happening- Russia and Iran are already trading denominated in Chinese Yuan.
A declining US/West and a rising China is a largely separate issue to climate change although the mandate for a Chinese empire could well be gained by China representing a political system that is more capable of responding logically to the threat of climate change than the corporate patronised fake democracy and crony capitalism of the West.
China with its politburo composed of 80% engineers has already has built the manufacturing and technology base required to radically increase energy efficiency and productivity.
reply
Are those engineers responsible for all of China's ghost cities? https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/the-story-behind-the-many-ghost-towns-of-abandoned-mansions-across-china. Imagine all the carbon emissions from building unused skyscrapers and demolishing them. Is that the energy efficiency you're referring to?
reply
Real estate development has been a major driver and regional governments have been responsible for this not the central government.
The central government and engineers who populate it have however used some rather creative management in terms of limiting the damage-
https://fortune.com/2024/02/08/evergrande-liquidation-99-percent-haircut-hedge-funds/
It is greedy western hedge funds that are being hung out to dry.
Climate change is a crisis which demonstrates very clearly the need for people to be capable of action beyond the crude imperatives of free markets. Climate change demands agreement and consensus to act in the common interest and that's is perhaps why it is denied by more extremist libertarians.
Spot on.
reply
Have you seen the price tag for solving climate change? $5.5T per year, and we can safely assume that's a low ball estimate considering who's making it. I'm curious how you think that gets paid for on a Bitcoin Standard. That's a lot of money to collect if there's no money printer.
reply
Have you seen the price tag for NOT solving climate change?
reply
Yes, yes I'm sure it's a lot. So how do we pay to solve climate change on a bitcoin standard? Keeping in mind the US already spends $1.7T more than it collects in taxes plus we need another $5.5T per year (globally) according to the UN. So where's all that money going to come from without the money printer? I'm making the assumption we all want a bitcoin standard here, am I wrong?
I'll answer that by saying NO. Climate change is NOT a threat to humanity and the planet.
Saifedean Ammous (author of The Bitcoin Standard) has a couple really good podcasts on this whole topic (the corruption of science, especially around the topic of climate).
Here's some of my favorites:
reply
I love Ammous' attitude which is provocative and challenging to status quo science but in some areas he is clearly taking an extreme position to invite debate.
The same with his interpretation of Keynesian economics- he takes things to an extreme to get a reaction but often at the price of misrepresenting the truth.
Ammous is no more a climate scientist then he is an economist- he majored in engineering.
reply
He doesn't claim to be a climate scientist. But he's interviewing people who are.
reply
He does claim to be an economist while his primary degree is in engineering.
That's fine with me as long as it is acknowledged, and it can be argued mainstream economics is riddled with fiat propaganda orthodoxy enforced by bankers.
However are you denying the massive disinformation campaign engaged by fossil fuel industry lobbyists to sow doubt and in any way possible obfuscate the issue?
reply
I think the propaganda at this point is so insanely tilted towards the climate catastrophe folks, I would welcome a little propaganda on the other side. I can't say I've ever heard anything from the oil industry, whereas the climate catastrophe folks on on the front page every day with their narrative.
I realize I gave you 4 podcast links above, that's too many. If I were to choose just one, I'd pick this one: https://saifedean.com/podcast/139-fossil-future-with-alex-epstein. Alex Epstein also has a website (https://energytalkingpoints.com/) which is fantastic.
reply
Another one Solomonsatoshi might enjoy is https://saifedean.com/podcast/80-government-funding-of-science-with-terence-kealey. Very good discussion on private vs public science.
reply
Why after watching so many Saifedeans podcasts can't you compose a cogent fact based argument of your own without deferring to the words of others?
I'm here for a contest of ideas which can be read and judged by all observers without reference to third parties/platforms supposed authorities as that does not represent a valid sequential contest of ideas on this platform.
reply
reply
The last 10000 years has seen some of the most stable weather earth has known and the ratio of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was also very stable- until the last 100 years.
Where was solar activity over the last 10000 years during this stable period that saw the rise of agriculture, human settlements and civilisation?
It is folly to ignore our vulnerability to changes in the ecosystem despite so many of us now living far from direct daily experience of nature.
reply
I suggest you stop believing the propaganda of fossil fuel sponsored proxies and take a look at the solid science both public and private funded that shows the planet is headed for one hell of an environmental, economic political and societal shit storm if we do not act very soon.
reply