I would ask people to consider whether it is legitimate to be concerned about messaging that potentially dissuades people from hoping for a solution if such messaging is not grounded in science.
Paragraph 2 should be rewritten for clarity.
I will do my best kassy.
The way I see it, your depiction of ASIF is accurate in describing ASIF as a place for discussion of certain topics. The discussion here is depicted as an end in itself and the ASIF community is neutral in terms of defining any objective related to social outcomes related to AGW.
Individual members of ASIF and non-members have a spectrum of orientation regarding potential social outcomes associated with AGW. Some are more optimistic about the possibility of salvaging something of human civilization and some are more pessimistic. There is no intention here to label either group as being more virtuous than the other.
I belong to the former group which maintains a sense that we are heading for something short of human extinction. This group believes that proactivity will determine the
degree of system collapse and human suffering. Messaging to promote proactivity is thus desirable to this group.
There is a risk scenario that people become falsely convinced that circumstances are hopeless when in fact there is still hope. This potential for false belief could result in increased suffering if it causes people to give up.
So, there are two different levels of how this might play out at ASIF.
The first level is to simply acknowledge that this is a logical risk assessment in the absence of certainty. A person doesn't have to agree with my prognosis, but there can be a level of appreciation that reducing this risk is a logical motivation. I won't quit on my kids future and I don't want the world to quit on their future. In the absence of certainty, I am extremely motivated to question any beliefs which portray their future as beyond salvage. I have what doomers would call a high level of
hopium. But I acknowledge that I may be wrong.
The appreciation that I fit this profile may help my urgency to counter an unsubstantiated pessimistic outlook. I blog about the american progressive movement and celebrated some recent accomplishments with the elections and the sanders biden unity task force. In the melting season thread I am the oddball who focuses on the glass half full facts like the Beaufort Sea, high CAB volume, export math which tells us summer export is low and albedo math from Nico Sun and NSIDC which is less adverse than the that espoused by others.
Obviously, I'm more strident in my advocacy than some might appreciate, but it lets you know I'm not trying to troll ASIF for kicks. It gives the moderators a chance to reflect as to how to integrate people like this into the community?
Another and deeper level of thinking is a reflection as to whether ASIF feels any responsibility whatsoever in terms of an obligation to get things right. Does ASIF have any concerns that the platform is portraying information in a scientifically defensible fashion?
If CAB volume was 700km3 greater in 2020 last month than 2019 and Friv makes the claim that this will easily be overcome via export when summer export average 100km3, I argue the point because the science is on my side.
When Friv argues that preconditioning reduces albedo to .5-.6 and Nico Sun says that the number is
more like 0.75, I argue because I feel like the science is on my side.Is there a recognition that ASIF has a platform and is a player in the world of shaping opinions which might influence people's inclination to take action? If there is such a recognition, do you feel any obligation that the platform is used responsibly?
There is a natural tension between a user such as Friv and myself. I want to see the world saved and he rooting for "inevitable' Armageddon. I think he's perfectly entitled to wish for whatever he wants but
I'm competing with him in terms of trying to persuade others about what to believe. ASIF should acknowledge the natural tension and provide guidance as to how to proceed when Friv announces a position that is not supported by science or subject matter experts. This can only be done if ASIF takes a position as to whether the platform is responsible for the messaging. If you are not actively invested in this, I will get run over. No decision is an abdication of responsibility.
(Note: this may be a new thing here. Maybe no else believes that individual action matters or in the corny adage that a small group of committed people can change the world. I'm weird in that regard and that may present new and unique challenges for the mod team.)