Science!

Okay . . . let's try this again.

Moderators: Shirley, Sabo, brian, DaveInSeattle, rass

User avatar
The Sybian
The Dude
Posts: 13446
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:36 am
Location: Working in the Crap Part of Jersey

Re: Science!

Post by The Sybian » Wed Mar 11, 2015 9:50 am

A-Mahz-ing. Things live on the moon, so clearly it is a planet. Holy fuck, what is the worst part about this? That he thinks the moon is a planet, she thinks it is a star, or he thinks there is life on the moon and other planets? How can anyone be this stupid and ignorant? I have seen the real video, but they cut out the life on the moon bit, which was gold. Horrible editing.
An honest to God cult of personality - formed around a failed steak salesman.
-Pruitt

User avatar
Sabo
The Dude
Posts: 5101
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 8:33 am
Location: On the trail

Re: Science!

Post by Sabo » Sun Mar 15, 2015 4:22 pm

"Once you get past the churlishness and insubordination, I've found (Sabo) to be entirely adequate as a person."
- AB

Shut the fuck up, Sabo.

User avatar
Johnny Carwash
The Dude
Posts: 5251
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 8:57 am
Location: Land of 10,000 Sununus

Re: Science!

Post by Johnny Carwash » Tue Apr 07, 2015 7:16 am

Hey, remember how whenever you'd say the name "Brontosaurus," some pedantic dick would tell you the species didn't exist and that the proper name was "Apatosaurus?" A group of paleontologists are making the case that Brontosaurus should, in fact, be recognized as a proper species.
Fanniebug wrote: P.S. rass! Dont write me again, dude! You're in ignore list!

User avatar
A_B
The Dude
Posts: 17851
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Getting them boards like a wolf in the chicken pen.

Re: Science!

Post by A_B » Wed Apr 08, 2015 7:29 am

Closest I could get to a dinosaur wearing a tight t-shirt.

Image
This "Whoa, Nelly" is brought to you by Nelly's Organic candy bars. Tastes like the good stuff, without the bad stuff. Whoa, Nelly!

User avatar
The Sybian
The Dude
Posts: 13446
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:36 am
Location: Working in the Crap Part of Jersey

Re: Science!

Post by The Sybian » Wed Apr 08, 2015 10:50 am

AB_skin_test wrote:Closest I could get to a dinosaur wearing a tight t-shirt.

Image
Just needs a color coordinated hat/sneakers combo.
An honest to God cult of personality - formed around a failed steak salesman.
-Pruitt

Johnnie
The Dude
Posts: 12744
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:31 pm
Location: KOREA, BITCH!

Re: Science!

Post by Johnnie » Thu Sep 03, 2015 2:49 pm

Science, comedy, wherever. I'll put it here.

mister d wrote:Couldn't have pegged me better.
EnochRoot wrote:I mean, whatever. Johnnie's all hot cuz I ride him.

Jerloma
The Dude
Posts: 5868
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:10 pm

Re: Science!

Post by Jerloma » Fri Sep 04, 2015 10:22 am

That was brilliant.
And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness. - God

User avatar
L-Jam3
Walter Sobchak
Posts: 3048
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 8:43 am

Re: Science!

Post by L-Jam3 » Tue Nov 24, 2015 10:47 am

Malaria infects 200 million people and causes a half million deaths every year. Cal-Irvine just mutated the mosquito that becomes resistant to the protozoa that causes it, and passes the gene to 99.5% within three generations.

Science is awesome.
My avatar corresponds on my place in the Swamp posting list with the all-time Home Run list. Number 45 is Andre "The Hawk" Dawson with 438.

User avatar
govmentchedda
The Dude
Posts: 8904
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:36 pm

Re: Science!

Post by govmentchedda » Tue Nov 24, 2015 11:13 am

As someone living with the scourge of lovebugs, I'm not instantly excited about this.

Of course, if I were someone living with the scourge of malaria, I might see things differently.
I took a two hour nap and cried during parks and Rec. it was awesome and terrifying.

User avatar
Shirley
The Dude
Posts: 5952
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:32 pm

Re: Science!

Post by Shirley » Tue Nov 24, 2015 12:16 pm

L-Jam3 wrote:Malaria infects 200 million people and causes a half million deaths every year. Cal-Irvine just mutated the mosquito that becomes resistant to the protozoa that causes it, and passes the gene to 99.5% within three generations.

Science is awesome.
That is awesome. If it works in the wild, it could be one of the most significant scientific efforts in decades.

That said, if we've learned anything, it's that this will lead to some other, unforeseen issues. Like maybe these mosquitos will be poisonous to some species of bat that lives off of them or something, killing that species out.
Totally Kafkaesque

User avatar
Rush2112
The Dude
Posts: 6343
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:35 pm
Location: Cyrus X-1
Contact:

Re: Science!

Post by Rush2112 » Tue Nov 24, 2015 1:29 pm

Had forgotten how awesome these programs are.

Did you see that ludicrous display last night?

Jerloma
The Dude
Posts: 5868
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:10 pm

Re: Science!

Post by Jerloma » Wed Mar 02, 2016 10:04 am

A mother decided to ask Reddit how to convince her husband not to vaccinate their children. This did not go well for her at all.
TL;DR: I am a health professional who refuses to vaccinate my child. My partner is, out of the blue, saying we should vaccinate. He is not informed on the subject either way and seems uninterested in learning more. How do I handle this?

Edit: I really hoped to get some compassionate advice for navigating the first throes of developing a coparenting relationship. I understand that others may believe differently on the specifics here, but I am shocked and disturbed at the sheer amount of hate, scorn, and intolerance we are capable of leveling at fellow beings when we are faceless on the internet. If I was a cultural minority this would be socially unacceptable, yet somehow it is okay to treat me as less-than because I am an intellectual minority... I had no idea what I was stumbling into. I will be leaving Reddit tomorrow.
The comments are fantastic though.
[–]alicenevercameback[S] -36 points 1 day ago

I'll address it here. I believe in building a healthy immune system the way Nature intended - by breastfeeding my infants and letting my toddlers play in the mud.

[–]MorgaineDax 310 points 1 day ago

Ah yes. Boobs and mud. The best cures for polio and whooping cough.
And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness. - God

User avatar
Sabo
The Dude
Posts: 5101
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 8:33 am
Location: On the trail

Re: Science!

Post by Sabo » Fri Apr 29, 2016 2:32 pm

"Once you get past the churlishness and insubordination, I've found (Sabo) to be entirely adequate as a person."
- AB

Shut the fuck up, Sabo.

User avatar
Shirley
The Dude
Posts: 5952
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:32 pm

Re: Science!

Post by Shirley » Tue May 10, 2016 4:34 pm

This is a great data visualization.

Totally Kafkaesque

User avatar
Johnny Carwash
The Dude
Posts: 5251
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 8:57 am
Location: Land of 10,000 Sununus

Re: Science!

Post by Johnny Carwash » Tue May 10, 2016 4:39 pm

Was that one spike in the late 1800's Krakatoa?
Fanniebug wrote: P.S. rass! Dont write me again, dude! You're in ignore list!

User avatar
brian
The Dude
Posts: 23514
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:52 am
Location: El lugar de ser
Contact:

Re: Science!

Post by brian » Tue May 10, 2016 4:40 pm

I refuse to believe this because it still snows in the winter.

User avatar
Shirley
The Dude
Posts: 5952
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:32 pm

Re: Science!

Post by Shirley » Tue May 10, 2016 4:49 pm

Johnny Carwash wrote:Was that one spike in the late 1800's Krakatoa?
I think that made the earth cooler, not warmer.
Totally Kafkaesque

User avatar
A_B
The Dude
Posts: 17851
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Getting them boards like a wolf in the chicken pen.

Re: Science!

Post by A_B » Wed May 11, 2016 8:20 am

OK. I don't usually do this. But whatever. One - that graph is dramatic in part because the first 50 years worth of data is compared against the median of itself. So naturally it won't vary as much.

Is the earth warmer? Sure seems so. But it also isn't clearly proven that this is anything that out of the ordinary in the worlds history. The earth is really fucking old. Even the most hardcore climate change proponents admit that there were times in the the earth's history that it was significantly warmer than it is now and don't point to anything other than earth's own processes that reversed it. In the 70's, all of the little things that happened again in the early 2000s that pointed to global warming was used as proof of a little ice age*. When the hiatus happened people had to start using climate change. It was spin control.

The fact that the average temperature of the earth is 1.4 degrees warmer than it was in 1875 is, to the earth, the same as it being 69 today and 70 tomorrow. Our scientific knowledge period is too insignificant of a sample size (this is Trevor Story looking like 27 Ruth for two weeks) to make any sweeping generalizations for anything other than political and economic gain, of which there has been plenty. All the "cliffs" we were going to fall off pointed out by Al Gore have passed without any significant changes.

Does man affect things? Sure. All organisms impact their environment. Can we do more to treat the world better? Absolutely. I'm all for planting trees, and cleaning up ocean waste. Can we be certain that what man has done is really the only issue? Nope.

I'll close with this: skepticism is the fuel for scientific advancement. Everyone was SURE that the earth was the center of the universe, until a couple of skeptics proved it wrong. Everyone was SURE we were a god-created people, until it was proven wrong. Every great scientific finding was made because a scientist refused to agree with the general consensus, or by accident.

When we stop looking, we stop advancing. Is it possible man is irreparably damaging the environment? Yes. Is it certain? No.


Edit: (* - Sabo pointed out that this wasn't clear. anyway, there were articles from mainstream and respected press that said that increased hurricanes, tornaodoes, droughts, and even man-made effects were leading to a coming ice age. Here is an aggregation of a lot of pieces from places like the NYT, Washington Post, Time, LA Times, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, Spock...not fly-by-night outlets. And yes, you can say that's cherry picking...but that's the point. There were skeptics then, and there are skeptics now.)
Last edited by A_B on Wed May 11, 2016 10:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
This "Whoa, Nelly" is brought to you by Nelly's Organic candy bars. Tastes like the good stuff, without the bad stuff. Whoa, Nelly!

P.D.X.
Walter Sobchak
Posts: 4186
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 12:31 pm

Re: Science!

Post by P.D.X. » Wed May 11, 2016 9:51 am

Whatever, big coal.

(The only gripe I have is with "Is it possible man is irreparably damaging the environment? Yes..." since nothing is really irreparable over a timeline of millions of years, but It's pretty incontrovertible that we've fucked things up irreparably for the foreseeable future of humanity. CF: mass species extinction, mass deforestation, overfishing, strip mining, etc. etc.)

User avatar
Shirley
The Dude
Posts: 5952
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:32 pm

Re: Science!

Post by Shirley » Wed May 11, 2016 11:05 am

A_B wrote:I'll close with this: skepticism is the fuel for scientific advancement. Everyone was SURE that the earth was the center of the universe, until a couple of skeptics proved it wrong. Everyone was SURE we were a god-created people, until it was proven wrong. Every great scientific finding was made because a scientist refused to agree with the general consensus, or by accident.
Come on, man. What scientists thought the earth was the center of the universe or that God created man? Scientists FIXED those misconceptions and millions of others.

In this case, the world's climate scientists are overwhelmingly in agreement. Those scientists, except for maybe a few cases, do NOT have great political or economic interests in their findings. On the other hand, those leading the climate change denying story have massive political and economic interests in play. It's not hard to follow the money here. Who do you think has more economic clout, the green movement or the oil/coal/manufacturing industries? They aren't in the same order of magnitude.

As for how the earth deals with warming and cooling - of course it's been both hotter and colder many times in the past. No one is saying otherwise. The two key parts of this though are that this change is happening much faster than it normally happens (outside of incidents like massive volcanic eruptions or meteor strikes) and that when the earth does go through climate changes, it causes massive changes to the life on earth (e.g. extinctions). Now, the earth doesn't give a shit either way. Life will go on. It just won't be the same kind of life that we've gotten kinda happy with over the past few hundred thousand years.

Lastly, yes, a lot of climate scientists got it wrong back in 1970. That was 46 years ago. Science and technology have advanced a hell of a lot since then. We didn't the satellites, computers and easy access to world-wide data that we do now. Does that mean for sure that we're right now? Of course not. I'm sure we're wrong about some of what's going on now. That happens. That doesn't mean it's all wrong though and you get to pick the answer that's most convenient for you (the general "you," not AB in particular).
Totally Kafkaesque

User avatar
A_B
The Dude
Posts: 17851
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Getting them boards like a wolf in the chicken pen.

Re: Science!

Post by A_B » Wed May 11, 2016 11:19 am

Shirley wrote:
A_B wrote:I'll close with this: skepticism is the fuel for scientific advancement. Everyone was SURE that the earth was the center of the universe, until a couple of skeptics proved it wrong. Everyone was SURE we were a god-created people, until it was proven wrong. Every great scientific finding was made because a scientist refused to agree with the general consensus, or by accident.
Come on, man. What scientists thought the earth was the center of the universe or that God created man? Scientists FIXED those misconceptions and millions of others.

In this case, the world's climate scientists are overwhelmingly in agreement. Those scientists, except for maybe a few cases, do NOT have great political or economic interests in their findings. On the other hand, those leading the climate change denying story have massive political and economic interests in play. It's not hard to follow the money here. Who do you think has more economic clout, the green movement or the oil/coal/manufacturing industries? They aren't in the same order of magnitude.

As for how the earth deals with warming and cooling - of course it's been both hotter and colder many times in the past. No one is saying otherwise. The two key parts of this though are that this change is happening much faster than it normally happens (outside of incidents like massive volcanic eruptions or meteor strikes) and that when the earth does go through climate changes, it causes massive changes to the life on earth (e.g. extinctions). Now, the earth doesn't give a shit either way. Life will go on. It just won't be the same kind of life that we've gotten kinda happy with over the past few hundred thousand years.

Lastly, yes, a lot of climate scientists got it wrong back in 1970. That was 46 years ago. Science and technology have advanced a hell of a lot since then. We didn't the satellites, computers and easy access to world-wide data that we do now. Does that mean for sure that we're right now? Of course not. I'm sure we're wrong about some of what's going on now. That happens. That doesn't mean it's all wrong though and you get to pick the answer that's most convenient for you (the general "you," not AB in particular).
I mean, these were two of my points. A) Skepticism is good. b)We don't know if everything's right but accepting one way as undeniable is foolhardy.
This "Whoa, Nelly" is brought to you by Nelly's Organic candy bars. Tastes like the good stuff, without the bad stuff. Whoa, Nelly!

User avatar
Steve of phpBB
The Dude
Posts: 6256
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:44 am

Re: Science!

Post by Steve of phpBB » Wed May 11, 2016 12:02 pm

Shirley wrote:As for how the earth deals with warming and cooling - of course it's been both hotter and colder many times in the past. No one is saying otherwise. The two key parts of this though are that this change is happening much faster than it normally happens (outside of incidents like massive volcanic eruptions or meteor strikes) and that when the earth does go through climate changes, it causes massive changes to the life on earth (e.g. extinctions). Now, the earth doesn't give a shit either way. Life will go on. It just won't be the same kind of life that we've gotten kinda happy with over the past few hundred thousand years.
To follow up, the earth's temperature has been remarkably steady for the past 12,000 years, which is when humanity began relying on agriculture, as opposed to nomadic hunting and gathering. So while the temperature of the earth has varied over the past billion years or more, non-nomadic humans don't actually have a track record of adapting to climate change. So any argument against taking steps to reduce greenhouse gasses based on the idea that "humans have adapted before, we'll adapt to this without significant problems" is based on a false premise.

Obviously, humans will adapt to climate change, but that adaptation is likely to be disastrous. So the less climate change the seven billion of us have to adapt to, the better off we will be.

(Here is a link to an article talking about the historical link between temperature stability and agriculture: http://www.vox.com/2015/12/12/9894234/c ... -explained)
And his one problem is he didn’t go to Russia that night because he had extracurricular activities, and they froze to death.

User avatar
The Sybian
The Dude
Posts: 13446
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:36 am
Location: Working in the Crap Part of Jersey

Re: Science!

Post by The Sybian » Wed May 11, 2016 2:01 pm

A_B wrote:OK.

1.) Is the earth warmer? Sure seems so. But it also isn't clearly proven that this is anything that out of the ordinary in the worlds history. The earth is really fucking old. Even the most hardcore climate change proponents admit that there were times in the the earth's history that it was significantly warmer than it is now and don't point to anything other than earth's own processes that reversed it. In the 70's, all of the little things that happened again in the early 2000s that pointed to global warming was used as proof of a little ice age*. When the hiatus happened people had to start using climate change. It was spin control.

2.) Our scientific knowledge period is too insignificant of a sample size (this is Trevor Story looking like 27 Ruth for two weeks) to make any sweeping generalizations for anything other than political and economic gain, of which there has been plenty. All the "cliffs" we were going to fall off pointed out by Al Gore have passed without any significant changes.

3.) Does man affect things? Sure. All organisms impact their environment. Can we do more to treat the world better? Absolutely. I'm all for planting trees, and cleaning up ocean waste. Can we be certain that what man has done is really the only issue? Nope.

4.) I'll close with this: skepticism is the fuel for scientific advancement. Everyone was SURE that the earth was the center of the universe, until a couple of skeptics proved it wrong. Everyone was SURE we were a god-created people, until it was proven wrong. Every great scientific finding was made because a scientist refused to agree with the general consensus, or by accident.

When we stop looking, we stop advancing. Is it possible man is irreparably damaging the environment? Yes. Is it certain? No.
First, thanks for the discussion points. It's unfortunate how difficult it is to have a rational discussion on this topic. A couple counterpoints:


1.) Absolutely, the Earth's temperature has made more dramatic shifts in temperature over various periods. But how much time did these changes stretch over? I have no idea, but I would think it is a slow progression over 1,000s of years or caused by a major event like an enormous comet strike. A bit of perspective, the time gap between T-Rex and humans is smaller than the time gap between T-Rex and stegosaurus.We aren't capable of conceiving the Earth's timeline.

-When you say it isn't clearly proven today's warming isn't out of the ordinary, I don't think something like this could ever be clearly proven, and i don't think any climatologists say it is clearly proven, just likely.


2.) Good points, and I do think Gore's predictions were over-the-top. Just because things aren't going downhill as fast as Gore predicted doesn't mean they aren't moving in that direction.

3.) I'm sure man isn't the only cause, but if man is contributing, we need to minimize the damage man is causing.

4.) All of your examples were beliefs held by society, not scientists. Science didn't sway people to believe man was God-created and Earth the center of the Universe. Those were man created myths with no scientific backing. Scientists had to supply evidence against the common belief and against forces (religion) trying to silence them. Global warming wasn't a commonly held belief until after scientists provided evidence.

Nobody who believes the science is calling for people to stop looking at other alternatives. The entire basis of science is attempting to disprove theories. The only people advocating to stop looking is the fossil fuel industry and the politicians they control. It's pretty telling that almost the entire world believes climate change is real, and man is a part of the problem.

My biggest problem with the climate change deniers, is that even if the science is 100% wrong, the outcome of switching to clean energy is better anyways. Sure, we will lose jobs in coal and oil, but we will gain jobs in solar, wind, and everything else. The rest of the world is switching to clean energy, so isn't the US a hell of a lot better off investing in developing new technologies, rather than milking the last dollars out of a dying industry? And if the world moves on from oil, the Middle East loses their power and money. It makes no sense to fight the change.
An honest to God cult of personality - formed around a failed steak salesman.
-Pruitt

User avatar
brian
The Dude
Posts: 23514
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:52 am
Location: El lugar de ser
Contact:

Re: Science!

Post by brian » Wed May 11, 2016 2:05 pm

And if the U.S. takes the lead in wind, solar, geothermal, etc. then we will reap the windfall (jobs, economic boost via the stock market, etc.). If we let China, Korea, Japan or Germany et al do so then we will not benefit as much economically.

Jerloma
The Dude
Posts: 5868
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:10 pm

Re: Science!

Post by Jerloma » Wed May 11, 2016 2:09 pm

A_B wrote:I mean, these were two of my points. A) Skepticism is good. b)We don't know if everything's right but accepting one way as undeniable is foolhardy.
The reason that we don't have to apply the same level of skepticism to science as we do to non-scientific claims is that the skepticism is already built into it. So if an overwhelming majority of the scientific community claims that human behavior is rapidly contributing to global warming, you go with that, the same way you go with them when they tell you that the force released from a jet engine will defy gravity at a rate well enough not to send you plummeting to your death.

While it may be the case that your dog leaves a bigger carbon footprint than your SUV, there are more practical ways to combat this than trading Buddy in for a Prius.* We're the only species in the history of the planet to have this amazing tool with such accurate predictive capabilities. Science isn't perfect but until someone can prove that we are not responsible for this situation we're in, we have to react accordingly. If someone does prove it, the scientific community will correct the theory, and promptly reward them with a Nobel Prize.

*blatantly stolen from this awesome song

And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness. - God

User avatar
Shirley
The Dude
Posts: 5952
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:32 pm

Re: Science!

Post by Shirley » Wed May 11, 2016 4:37 pm

A_B wrote:I mean, these were two of my points. A) Skepticism is good. b)We don't know if everything's right but accepting one way as undeniable is foolhardy.
Agreed, but you can't equate skepticism of uneducated stone-age beliefs with skepticism of the overwhelmingly consistent opinion of the world's climate scientists.

From this webpage - https://www.skepticalscience.com/global ... ediate.htm
Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

A decent four-minute video covering the debate of this consensus and folks don't believe it.

Totally Kafkaesque

User avatar
A_B
The Dude
Posts: 17851
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Getting them boards like a wolf in the chicken pen.

Re: Science!

Post by A_B » Thu May 12, 2016 7:28 am

The 97% number is accepted, fine. But it's generally accepted in vague terms...just like Obama, a skilled verbologist, says in the opening..."97% agree that the world is warming and man contributes." I'm on the lonely side of this argument and I conceded that in my initial response. So 100% of the swamp agrees that the world is warmer and man contributes. Fuck 97%! That number is virtually useless, even though it's most likely a correct statistic.

OK, man contributes! How much? Can we do things to offset that change? Can we make use of all the forms of energy we have to live the way we want to live?

Another side point is that we are spoiled as Americans. Yeah, we can be leaders in this arena of renewable. Why? Because our infrastructure was created already on the backs of the power already provided in our nation's history. Is it fair to developing countries - where access to affordable electricity is strongly linked to better health and welfare and economic growth - to force them to find cleaner, more expensive solutions?

This is to Steve's point. It's no secret I have a vested interest in coal being a part of the fuel mix for years to come. It rubs me the wrong way that there have been regulations put in place and that the two leading politicians and potentially two straight Presidents have explicitly said either "building a coal fired power plant will bankrupt people" or "we're going to put a lot of miners out of jobs." I'm allowed to be annoyed at national leaders for that just as others might be upset about military policy or budget distress. Don't say you're against fossil fuels, then promote one because "we have to get power from somewhere." Let the market decide. If people feel strongly enough about this, they'll insist on solar or wind power (heck, I think Nuclear is far and away the best source of energy around, but people are terrified), impact on their wallet be damned. I could handle a natural business cycle forcing me out of a job more readily than a suit in Washington doing it.
This "Whoa, Nelly" is brought to you by Nelly's Organic candy bars. Tastes like the good stuff, without the bad stuff. Whoa, Nelly!

User avatar
The Sybian
The Dude
Posts: 13446
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:36 am
Location: Working in the Crap Part of Jersey

Re: Science!

Post by The Sybian » Thu May 12, 2016 10:43 am

A_B wrote:The 97% number is accepted, fine. But it's generally accepted in vague terms...just like Obama, a skilled verbologist, says in the opening..."97% agree that the world is warming and man contributes." I'm on the lonely side of this argument and I conceded that in my initial response. So 100% of the swamp agrees that the world is warmer and man contributes. Fuck 97%! That number is virtually useless, even though it's most likely a correct statistic.

OK, man contributes! How much? Can we do things to offset that change? Can we make use of all the forms of energy we have to live the way we want to live?

Another side point is that we are spoiled as Americans. Yeah, we can be leaders in this arena of renewable. Why? Because our infrastructure was created already on the backs of the power already provided in our nation's history. Is it fair to developing countries - where access to affordable electricity is strongly linked to better health and welfare and economic growth - to force them to find cleaner, more expensive solutions?

This is to Steve's point. It's no secret I have a vested interest in coal being a part of the fuel mix for years to come. It rubs me the wrong way that there have been regulations put in place and that the two leading politicians and potentially two straight Presidents have explicitly said either "building a coal fired power plant will bankrupt people" or "we're going to put a lot of miners out of jobs." I'm allowed to be annoyed at national leaders for that just as others might be upset about military policy or budget distress. Don't say you're against fossil fuels, then promote one because "we have to get power from somewhere." Let the market decide. If people feel strongly enough about this, they'll insist on solar or wind power (heck, I think Nuclear is far and away the best source of energy around, but people are terrified), impact on their wallet be damned. I could handle a natural business cycle forcing me out of a job more readily than a suit in Washington doing it.

I don't think anyone is saying they are 100% positive global warming is happening and man is contributing. Maybe I am speaking out of turn here, but what we are saying is the evidence overwhelmingly shows it is probable that man made global warming is occurring. I am completely open to evidence showing man has no effect on the Earth's temperature, but right now, the evidence nearly unanimously shows man is causing the Earth's temperature to rise. Science is built on skepticism. Theories and evidence on global warming are being challenged and tested repeatedly by 100s of climatologists, NASA and other scientific fields. The lack of intellectually honest skepticism is coming from the deniers. There is absolutely no amount of data, evidence or proof that will sway the deniers. Many are convinced of a global conspiracy. My favorite argument is that 97% of scientists studying global warming are conspiring to falsify their findings for personal gain. That the scientists need to fake their studies, or else their government grants will disappear. Like climatologists are using that money to buy Ferraris and mountains of coke. I laugh when I hear a denier say "follow the money." Who has more money invested in this issue, scientists selling their soles for government grants, or the Oil and Coal industries, standing to lose billions of dollars if we move away from their products?

If you concede the 97% number, which I concede is misleading, are you suggesting we continue burning coal and oil just in case the 3% of scientists are correct? If we move towards cleaner energy and then discover man doesn't cause global warming, society is at an enormous net gain anyways. Sure, I feel for you and countless others if you industry goes under, but from what I've read, a full blown push towards cleaner energy will create more American jobs than will be lost from the fossil fuel industry. Not to mention, the jobs will be much safer. No more coal miners and oil rig dudes. No more BP-like disasters fucking the environment. No more oil tankers leaking or crashing. No more pollution from burning gasoline, coal fired power plants, fracking which has to have horrendous consequences, no more ruptured oil pipelines, which has potential to start being a major problem due to the aging infrastructure.

As for letting the market decide, that ship sailed long ago. The fossil fuel industry has spent 100s of millions of dollars to prevent the market from moving away from fossil fuel. Like most new industries, government stimulus is necessary to get the ball rolling. If the US government didn't invest money and resources into development, we probably wouldn't have the internet. Without government money and resources, we wouldn't have the airline industry. Developing a new industry in most cases is cost prohibitive. It takes a lot of money up front, and a lot of time before they are profitable. Unless you are Elon Musk, nobody can afford to dump that much money into development and wait that long to start seeing a profit. Massive movement towards cleaner, renewable energy is happening whether the US leads the market or not, and I see this is a chance for the US to get back into a manufacturing role. Enormous amounts of money are going to be made and jobs created in the near future on solar, wind, hydro and whatever else power, and I sure as fuck would rather the money and jobs open the US rather than Germany, Norway, and wherever else.

I don't get your point about our infrastructure being built on older forms of power being unfair. That's like saying the Broncos should stick with Peyton Manning as their starting QB for the next 40 years, since they built their championship around him. That power got us to where we are, and it's time to take the next step. Just because America has more infrastructure, it's unfair for the US to lead the way into the next generation of energy? If you are saying we can't force 3rd world countries to switch over, fine, but does that mean we shouldn't?

As for not wanting to lose your job because of a government suit, that's the only way we will get advancement. As I said, the free market is a myth when the oil industry rakes in such enormous profits and hold so much power. The most recent numbers I could easily find show the Big 5 oil companies made $93.3 Billion is profits in 2013, with $2.4 Billion in tax deductions, not including government subsidies, and Billions in interest free deferred tax liabilities. The oil industry is expected to spend over $31 Million in lobbying this year. Don't tell me the free market will decide. Watch the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?" Big Oil shut down GM's successful project. To the point that they took back all of the vehicles, refusing to let anyone keep them, and dumped them in a scrap heap. People begged to buy them, and GM sent tow trucks to repossess them all.

Again, I totally get your point of view, I know you've been with the same employer for a long time, but from an unbiased perspective, there is no way it makes sense to continue with our current energy system. Yes, it would suck for you and all your coworkers, but IMO would be a huge gain for our society.
An honest to God cult of personality - formed around a failed steak salesman.
-Pruitt

User avatar
A_B
The Dude
Posts: 17851
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Getting them boards like a wolf in the chicken pen.

Re: Science!

Post by A_B » Thu May 12, 2016 11:05 am

The Sybian wrote:

If you concede the 97% number, which I concede is misleading, are you suggesting we continue burning coal and oil just in case the 3% of scientists are correct? If we move towards cleaner energy and then discover man doesn't cause global warming, society is at an enormous net gain anyways. Sure, I feel for you and countless others if you industry goes under, but from what I've read, a full blown push towards cleaner energy will create more American jobs than will be lost from the fossil fuel industry. Not to mention, the jobs will be much safer. No more coal miners and oil rig dudes. No more BP-like disasters fucking the environment. No more oil tankers leaking or crashing. No more pollution from burning gasoline, coal fired power plants, fracking which has to have horrendous consequences, no more ruptured oil pipelines, which has potential to start being a major problem due to the aging infrastructure.
Maybe, and it's a big maybe, there is a net gain on a national basis. But in areas that mine coal, for example, those renewable sources are not feasible. You need massive amounts of land to make wind farms viable on a large scale. Solar is a bit better, but in my neck of the woods, there's not a high enough percentage of solar capture hours to be feasible either. Maybe as the technologies improve, but it isn't really close right now. So don't force legislation that is at the expense of an industry until you can prove the new industry will work out and provide what needs to be provided.
The Sybian wrote: I don't get your point about our infrastructure being built on older forms of power being unfair. That's like saying the Broncos should stick with Peyton Manning as their starting QB for the next 40 years, since they built their championship around him. That power got us to where we are, and it's time to take the next step. Just because America has more infrastructure, it's unfair for the US to lead the way into the next generation of energy? If you are saying we can't force 3rd world countries to switch over, fine, but does that mean we shouldn't?
Yes, I was referencing developing countries, not the US. I said the US could absolutely be a leader in these technologies.

But to go along with the football theme, you could say that an expansion team (a developing country) wants to hire a Veteran Coach and a Reliable QB (fossil fuels) because it's been shown that having those things helps a new franchise out. The NFL wouldn't say, no, you have to have all unproven rookies (Solar and Wind on large scales) that weren't even all that consistent or reliable in college (the time they have been developing the technologies that haven't yet become practical on large scales) and pay them more than you would pay a Peyton Manning (those technologies will naturally cost more because they're new and require all new equipment).

I'm not saying we shouldn't embrace all the forms of energy available. I meant to put that in one of my earlier posts, but I guess I didn't. I think to live the way we want to live we will need all the forms of energy available to us. I just don't think promoting ones that have yet to prove their viability at the expense of ones that have is the best way to do it.
This "Whoa, Nelly" is brought to you by Nelly's Organic candy bars. Tastes like the good stuff, without the bad stuff. Whoa, Nelly!

User avatar
Shirley
The Dude
Posts: 5952
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:32 pm

Re: Science!

Post by Shirley » Thu May 12, 2016 11:25 am

AB, I agree with nearly all of your post up there. There really are a lot of difficult decisions to be made about how to deal with energy production going forward and it's not clear at all what the best plans are. It for sure won't be fair, but then again, that's not unusual.

The key thing is for everyone to first agree on the foundational facts and then go from there. The problem is that so much money has been thrown at denying climate change - and even if it is changing, humans CAN'T be responsible - that the subsequent difficult and important debates can't even happen.

I also get that folks directly benefited by the existing "dirty" energy solutions are going to be very much against any sort of change to the market. That's natural. It's no different than folks in manufacturing being against any sort of free trade deals. Doesn't make them right though. Maybe it's right for them, but not for society/America/the world as a whole.

BTW, I'm totally on board with increased use of nuclear power in the future. I find that MUCH more likely to be a viable long-term solution than wind, solar, biofuels, etc.
Totally Kafkaesque

User avatar
Steve of phpBB
The Dude
Posts: 6256
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:44 am

Re: Science!

Post by Steve of phpBB » Thu May 12, 2016 12:17 pm

AB, there's another problem with the "let the free market decide" notion, because until now (and for the foreseeable future), coal plants and other fossil plants have been allowed to emit their CO2 into the air for free.

That's why I would love to see a real carbon tax. Let the activity bear the true cost of that activity.

And because CO2 emissions do not stay localized, I don't know how much extra slack should be granted for an area where wind or solar aren't that great. I would rather see more work put into expanding and improving the grid to bring power to those areas. But at any rate, if coal is truly the best power generation option for a given geographical area, then coal will win out in that area over solar, or wind, or hydro, or nuclear, or natural gas, or grid improvements.
And his one problem is he didn’t go to Russia that night because he had extracurricular activities, and they froze to death.

User avatar
The Sybian
The Dude
Posts: 13446
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:36 am
Location: Working in the Crap Part of Jersey

Re: Science!

Post by The Sybian » Thu May 12, 2016 12:35 pm

A_B wrote: Maybe, and it's a big maybe, there is a net gain on a national basis. But in areas that mine coal, for example, those renewable sources are not feasible. You need massive amounts of land to make wind farms viable on a large scale. Solar is a bit better, but in my neck of the woods, there's not a high enough percentage of solar capture hours to be feasible either. Maybe as the technologies improve, but it isn't really close right now. So don't force legislation that is at the expense of an industry until you can prove the new industry will work out and provide what needs to be provided.

Yes, I was referencing developing countries, not the US. I said the US could absolutely be a leader in these technologies.

But to go along with the football theme, you could say that an expansion team (a developing country) wants to hire a Veteran Coach and a Reliable QB (fossil fuels) because it's been shown that having those things helps a new franchise out. The NFL wouldn't say, no, you have to have all unproven rookies (Solar and Wind on large scales) that weren't even all that consistent or reliable in college (the time they have been developing the technologies that haven't yet become practical on large scales) and pay them more than you would pay a Peyton Manning (those technologies will naturally cost more because they're new and require all new equipment).

I'm not saying we shouldn't embrace all the forms of energy available. I meant to put that in one of my earlier posts, but I guess I didn't. I think to live the way we want to live we will need all the forms of energy available to us. I just don't think promoting ones that have yet to prove their viability at the expense of ones that have is the best way to do it.
Alright, I don't think we are that far apart. I know we are nowhere near ready to drop fossil fuels. I'm thinking more along the lines of a 20 to 30 year plan gradually shifting towards renewable energy, and I don't think we could be completely off of fossil fuels by then. I'm just calling for more focus on developing new and more efficient sources of energy. Solar isn't viable because we haven't developed a suitable battery or device to store or transport the energy. You can power a home, but not use solar for a powerplant. Yet. Same with wind, it isn't efficient enough to use on a large scale. I'm saying that instead of giving Billions in subsidies and tax breaks to Exxon while they rake in record profits, lets use some of that money to fund research on developing better ways to capture solar energy. Lets find ways to keep energy production on a more local scale, so we don't have to rely on our decaying energy grid that is guaranteed to fail on a mass scale unless we dump $Billions into repairs and upgrades. So much government money and efforts are going into keeping the Titanic afloat so Exxon Execs can bring home $50 Million bonuses, and government officials can leave for cush jobs in the industry.

I wasn't trying to get into a discussion on third world countries. I agree, it's insane to force them to use technology that is still prohibitively expensive and inefficient. I thought you were saying the US should keep Peyton Manning. I'm down with an expansion team starting with reliable and affordable energy until the technology is practical.
An honest to God cult of personality - formed around a failed steak salesman.
-Pruitt

User avatar
A_B
The Dude
Posts: 17851
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Getting them boards like a wolf in the chicken pen.

Re: Science!

Post by A_B » Thu May 12, 2016 12:41 pm

I really feel like one of us should call the other Hitler or something.
This "Whoa, Nelly" is brought to you by Nelly's Organic candy bars. Tastes like the good stuff, without the bad stuff. Whoa, Nelly!

User avatar
brian
The Dude
Posts: 23514
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:52 am
Location: El lugar de ser
Contact:

Re: Science!

Post by brian » Thu May 12, 2016 1:01 pm

I'm not sure why making the billions in investments necessary to upgrade the power grid wasn't part of the stimulus in 2008. That's the root of the whole problem. Once upgraded, then solar and wind power DO become much more viable as long-term solutions.

User avatar
The Sybian
The Dude
Posts: 13446
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:36 am
Location: Working in the Crap Part of Jersey

Re: Science!

Post by The Sybian » Thu May 12, 2016 1:14 pm

A_B wrote:I really feel like one of us should call the other Hitler or something.
I'm calling for government funding to create competition to your industry, so you can have the honors. Or go with the typical "Libtard."

Brian wrote:I'm not sure why making the billions in investments necessary to upgrade the power grid wasn't part of the stimulus in 2008. That's the root of the whole problem. Once upgraded, then solar and wind power DO become much more viable as long-term solutions.
Sure, that would have made total sense. Except for that whole thing of money influencing politics.
An honest to God cult of personality - formed around a failed steak salesman.
-Pruitt

User avatar
A_B
The Dude
Posts: 17851
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Getting them boards like a wolf in the chicken pen.

Re: Science!

Post by A_B » Thu May 12, 2016 1:18 pm

Competition is fine! Great even! But level the playing field!

(was just saying it's too civil up in here. oh the huge manatee)
This "Whoa, Nelly" is brought to you by Nelly's Organic candy bars. Tastes like the good stuff, without the bad stuff. Whoa, Nelly!

User avatar
The Sybian
The Dude
Posts: 13446
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:36 am
Location: Working in the Crap Part of Jersey

Re: Science!

Post by The Sybian » Thu May 12, 2016 1:21 pm

A_B wrote:Competition is fine! Great even! But level the playing field!
Sure, by funneling Billions of dollars into developing better energy sources to match the Billions given to Big Oil and Coal, and ban Big Oil from buying politicians and lobbying.
An honest to God cult of personality - formed around a failed steak salesman.
-Pruitt

User avatar
Steve of phpBB
The Dude
Posts: 6256
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:44 am

Re: Science!

Post by Steve of phpBB » Thu May 12, 2016 2:22 pm

brian wrote:I'm not sure why making the billions in investments necessary to upgrade the power grid wasn't part of the stimulus in 2008. That's the root of the whole problem. Once upgraded, then solar and wind power DO become much more viable as long-term solutions.
"Clean Energy" stuff was a big part of the stimulus.

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/ ... ions/?_r=0
And his one problem is he didn’t go to Russia that night because he had extracurricular activities, and they froze to death.

User avatar
brian
The Dude
Posts: 23514
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:52 am
Location: El lugar de ser
Contact:

Re: Science!

Post by brian » Thu May 12, 2016 2:25 pm

That was essentially a drop in the bucket. I get they had to spread it around a little, but looks like about 5 percent (roughly) of the entire stimulus. I'd be curious to learn 7 years later what that $11B investment in "smart grid" technology has achieved.

User avatar
Steve of phpBB
The Dude
Posts: 6256
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:44 am

Re: Science!

Post by Steve of phpBB » Thu May 12, 2016 2:38 pm

brian wrote:That was essentially a drop in the bucket. I get they had to spread it around a little, but looks like about 5 percent (roughly) of the entire stimulus. I'd be curious to learn 7 years later what that $11B investment in "smart grid" technology has achieved.
Half the stimulus was tax cuts, and a lot of the other stuff was money given directly to states to help them keep their operations going. So solar ended up being a big chunk of the rest. It certainly seemed that way at the time.

If you read any of the stuff that David Roberts writes for Vox (he was formerly with Grist), it's getting a lot. Solar is growing, fast. It is growing at the individual house level, and the power plant level, and the intermediate level. For example, Real Salt Lake built a covered parking lot at their stadium last year. This year they covered all of the roof structures with solar panels.
And his one problem is he didn’t go to Russia that night because he had extracurricular activities, and they froze to death.

Post Reply