"If we are talking about worlds that will never be realized, what do our statements about them mean?" -- Myles Osprey
I found Osprey's work on counterfactual simulations to be particularly compelling. Early on, Osprey references the tension between a desire for practical science (such as prediction rather than counter-factual simulation) and the necessary role counterfactuals play in upholding the rigor of models and the integrity of scientific claims. Later on, he applies a concept I think about a lot in regards to storytelling to the sociology of climate change. Counterfactual models demonstrate that climate change is a choice; it is neither non-existent nor inevitable, but something human behavior has the power to change. Not being able to hide behind the plausible deniability of non-existence nor inevitability, counterfactual models (should) inspire us to act.
I'm curious about whether Allen or Osprey think that on the trajectory/behavior pattern we're currently on, it would be more beneficial to end fossil fuel companies' "green initiatives" entirely, either because that would stir enough outrage to shut them down or the efforts are really not making any positive impact? Or, is it at least somewhat beneficial compared to no action on the part of fossil fuel companies?
I also wonder what counterfactual simulations they have run regarding carbon capture, both the environmental and economic impacts.
Finally, I'm very curious about what the model that uses fluid flowing through pipes to simulate climate looks like and how it works! In my head all of the "models" were theoretical systems of equations rather than physical representations.