Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[rclab]

On 3/10/2025 at 9:09 AM, Typhoon Tip said:

It's the Internet's fault ...  Well, more precisely it's humanities' fault for their innovation in creating the Internet.

Civility was created after millennia of trial and error, a storied history of many successes that would ultimately destabilize. The end result is merely vestigially carried onward. It was just a matter of time and erosion.  If they managed by without succumbing to external factors, endemic internal factors seem unavoidable to emerge.  The Romans let opulence breed apathy, then it is thought lead piping also contributed to dumbing down ... eventually sloth and degradation of virtuosity ultimately left them vulnerable to the Visigoths.

In modernity, we have an incredibly, though probably not originally anticipated, destabilizing influence that resulted when we gave infinitum and unguarded information to commoner peoples.  You know ... in some sort of artistic or idealized vision, one might be inclined to think that's a good thing?  Unlimited information. Yet, there are examples everywhere we look of how this has failed to lead to some sort of generic grand enlightenment; rather, proven a schismatic influence. And in fact, lowered functional intelligence in lieu of what appears more so to be group manias.

We're asking people not mentally prepared, or even capable really of objectively filtering information that is too vastly beyond effective cognitition. Or even recognizing what is objective real, becoming a very coherent ramification.  We're asking a the first PCs to handle pita-flop tasking without overheating.  And they are empowered, as voters, to ultimately make decisions that effect policy at the macro-scale of civility. 

Perhaps it takes a PHD dissertation and a pass through refereeing to prove what is probably more academically obvious anyway, but that's unlikely to end well.   More information is not a good thing for more than half the population, not when the information is both differentiating, and affecting. 

Any administration rising to power through that the realm of election is precarious.  This particular example?  Given to the history of the United States heredity, its Constitution, ... just the standard of behavior since the Declaration Of Independence and the universal sense of mores and propriety, there is an indictment of something gone desperately wrong.  And that is that the Internet has empowered a masses that can't handle the power; they have found one another and through that collection become emboldened through reenforcing etho-chambers of falsity.  It's an indictment that suggests that the commoner is simply not intelligent enough to right a decision.  The elephant in the room.  Voting ... fails... in a post modern era of Internet access.  How dare anyone suggest such an idea.

There's an indictment of moral intelligence.

There's an indictment of virtuosity intelligence.

There's an indictment of 'mathematical' intelligence.

If you've ever heard of the D-Day clock?  The compendium of different risk assessments, that are existential to a special level, include, nuclear warfare, climate change, and artificial intelligence.  Perhaps we can circuit the Internet abstractly through AI, but that's a stretch.  The Internet appears for the time being to be the greatest destructive force effective in a self-determination model.  What is also interesting .. the emerging ramification of the Internets influencing total civility, may trigger any one of those D-Day clock events.  

Well, the clock ticks a fraction of a unit closer to midnight ...

https://phys.org/news/2025-03-scientists-trump-threaten-climate-safety.html

 

 

Perhaps there isn’t ……… as always ….

 

[Typhoon Tip]

On 3/6/2025 at 7:11 PM, GaWx said:

Charles Krauthammer (RIP) was certainly not an idiot. To the contrary, he was actually brilliant and likely had a Mensa level IQ. I don’t see anything in his article from 2014 that seems moronic. He’s not denying CC as he clearly states.

In the context relating 'settled' to a global perspective of CC, vs the detailing sciences ongoing:

The former is settled, and is fundamentally true.   The latter is not.

That's all he has to say.

Unfortunately, ... the tenor of the op ed casts doubt over the total principle by confusing a key difference - yes, even though he writes words to the affect of not denying.  It has to be spelled out cleaner to the general hoi polloi.

Whether he intends to or not, it erodes confidence in a already, nearly insurmountable task of getting total society to believe there is a problem, one that is significant enough to be considered an existential threat at a species level - there's a long way to go in a situation that has a shorter distance to the cliff than most are even aware.   We can observe an unprecedented jump in an entire planetary system by a whole degree ( 2023) - that occurrence is certainly fantastic enough in itself (if perhaps a bit terrifying...), but the under-acknowledged warning is that we are incapable of seeing large ramifications before they happen ...What's the next jump going to be?  Missed while we were arguing over semantics?  digressing. 

"Settled" pertains to the principal of climate change.   IT'S SETTLED.

Specific linking human activity since the IR is all but unbearable to deny, given math and physics for f' sake.  But there is a complex of cause and effects, with a lot of synergistic entanglement that really cannot be settled (for now) - but that's conflating an uncertainty realm of the discrete, with the governing principle which is concrete. 

Quibbling over details and decimals, as though the uncertainty in these subsidiary sciences unsettles CC is not right. 

In fact, those authoring peer reviewed papers, out and consorting among the ambit of research, all will tell you there are uncertainties but the purpose of telling everyone that CC isn't settled intellectually, is false.

 

 

 

[Typhoon Tip]

https://phys.org/news/2025-03-nasa-chief-scientist-trump.html