I love David Deutsch! I subscribe to Everettian mechanics. So naturally he is one of my favorite theorists on fundamental physics!

My strong guess is that if Popper were alive today, he would be strongly inclined to believe that anthropogenic climate change was real based on the preponderance of empirical evidence, and the logical deductions that can be extracted from our understanding of quantum physics and thermodynamics. In particular, the thermal absorption properties of CO2 and methane, the strong correlation of temperature and CO2 levels in the geological record, exoplanetary science, etc.

Popper's critical rationalism emphasized both the importance of having conjecture and refutation at the center of scientific inquiry. Both empiricism and logical deduction were seen as important tools in this regard. To the extent that people believe Popper was a strict positivist, they have absorbed a false folk viewpoint on the matter.

It's not novel. Popper did not subscribe to strict positivism. He believed it made for a stronger theory.

Popper is one of my favorite philosophers, and anybody who has read him in detail would not be surprised by anything I'm saying.

Do we need energy austerity? Hell no.

To add to this: Popper actually became incredibly critical of strict positivists, and came to endorse a view he called "critical rationalism".

Even though Popper is the creator of positivism, it is actually incorrect that he insisted on falsifiability to the degree that is often attributed to him.

He believed there was a place for deductive science reasoning. Einstein's theories at the time could not be empirically tested, for instance, and Popper did not reject them.

My ideology generally comports with large swaths of the classical liberal and now, New Liberal tradition. So I'm pretty comfortable using the label for myself.

We clearly have the technology for clean energy abundance. And the obstacle is clearly political in nature.

Problem is we can't communicate ideas without labels. Every word I just typed in this note is a label, connoting some meaning. Hopefully meaning that is shared, and can be cogently received and interpreted.

I am extremely pro-nuclear. Yes. ☢️!

Really just a small-L liberal. I wouldn't call myself a progressive in the American political context, as there's a lot of political connotations there I don't subscribe to, or am outright hostile to. But when it comes to social and cultural matters, I'm anti-conservative. Which may confuse people into thinking I'm a left progressive.

I also think the far right focus on going bonkers on things like coal and oil is also insane. Hate me from both sides!

Energy and wealth are basically the same thing. The economy is a thermodynamic system. We not only need clean energy. We need 10X the amount of energy we have now. The far left focus on efficiency and energy austerity is literally insane.

I think money is but one of many incentives in society. I am not one of those people who attributes most of what is wrong in our society to fiat, no. Even though I agree things like the Cantillon effect are real.

Macron says you just need to understand where Xi is coming from bro.

I really don't want to get into an argument about the science here, to be honest. Maybe another day. But I'd suggest your question is a red herring.

Even if there is, that wouldn't make the science invalid. Do you believe your point of view is not polluted by ideology?

I'd say the evidence has converged on that hypothesis appearing to represent the best theory, yes.

You can argue that if you wish. But I'd suggest you may be injecting your political and ideological priors, and engaging in confirmation bias.