|
down with slavery posted:Everybody knows this, it's just "concerned liberals" that like to drop it when the progressive elements of the party remind them that they are pursuing a suicidal energy policy by choice. You think I'm a wheel in both telco AND big oil? drat, I really am someone!
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 11:17 |
|
Pauline Kael posted:You think I'm a wheel in both telco AND big oil? drat, I really am someone! No I think you're an idiot who's worldview is informed largely by MSNBC. They just happen to tote a very pro-corporate line that you're all so willing to repeat without any ounce of critical thought.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 15:06
|
|
|
It just seems like there's a tendency in this thread (and maybe in D&D more broadly) to see 'greens' as part of the problem. If they just accepted science everything would be fine right? Because public policy is made based on public opinion and powerful entrenched interests don't have a major effect. Not to mention that 'science' often serves those entrenched interests.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:No I think you're an idiot who's worldview is informed largely by MSNBC. They just happen to tote a very pro-corporate line that you're all so willing to repeat without any ounce of critical thought. In that case, I'm pretty sure you're a shitposter who seems to get some kind of gratification from being the contrarian in every thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 15:11
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:In that case, I'm pretty sure you're a shitposter who seems to get some kind of gratification from being the contrarian in every thread. I'm not "contrarian" you just happen to have really dumb opinions (which for the record have already been stated and debunked multiple times in this thread alone). Nothing stopped you from coming in to this thread and being right. But please, I want to hear more about how the greens have stopped Nuclear power and why natural gas is the only "realistic" option Dad. down with slavery fucked around with this message at 15:21 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:In that case, I'm pretty sure you're a shitposter who seems to get some kind of gratification from being the contrarian in every thread. You're both right. Can you take the slapfight to PMs?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:I'm not "contrarian" you just happen to have really dumb opinions (which for the record have already been stated and debunked multiple times in this thread alone). Nothing stopped you from coming in to this thread and being right. But please, I want to hear more about how the greens have stopped Nuclear power and why natural gas is the only "realistic" option Dad. So it's your position that the greens are completely ineffective at affecting public opinion or policy? Is it incompetence or are they just generally ineffectual?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:So it's your position that the greens are completely ineffective at affecting public opinion or policy? Is it incompetence or are they just generally ineffectual? Is it your opinion that if greens accepted nuclear the coal and oil industries would be finished?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 15:45
|
|
Anosmoman posted:So it's your position that the greens are completely ineffective at affecting public opinion or policy? Is it incompetence or are they just generally ineffectual? A little bit of the former but mostly the latter. (incompetence vs ineffectiveness) The "left" has no political power, hasn't in about 30 years.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
Duck Rodgers posted:Is it your opinion that if greens accepted nuclear the coal and oil industries would be finished? Not really - my point is that if a group is fighting for the wrong cause it's not a very good defense of them to say they are not succeeding. Lack of success doesn't make your attempts at something bad acceptable – it just make you incompetent - and even though they didn't cause the bad thing to happen it's still their ultimate goal so they should be held morally accountable for it. I don't think it's as simple as "the greens did it" though. Things that can be framed as scary science is clearly something that hits a nerve with a lot of people and that has the power to affect public opinion or policy. The anti-vaxxers don't have a multi-billion dollar multinational behind them - on the contrary - but it's still something that has taken hold in some communities. Now many people are wary of nuclear power and the greens have certainly been hitting the scary-science nerve - personally I think it has had an impact in forming public opinion especially over time. Ultimately I suppose the responsibility lies with the government(s) if they don't counter mis-information and makes sure the populace is educated but much like the anti-vax thing it's apparently not a priority.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:As opposed to fossil fuel's sparkling safety record. down with slavery posted:Since when has there been an election on nuclear power? Oh yeah, never.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 20:50
|
|
CSM posted:What does that even mean? Public opinion has jack all to do with why we aren't seeing nuclear plants built today.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
So many leftists being blind anti-nuke reactionaries is a symptom, not the disease. Still makes me pretty 
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Duck Rodgers posted:Why have environmentalists been wildly successful at preventing nuclear development, yet have been able to do almost nothing to slow oil production? Blame the Cold War. Like, really, that's it: the spectre of nuclear war will continue to haunt it as an energy source until the majority of the Boomers are in the ground. Oil drives war, sure, but it isn't as sensationalistic as the idea of the absolute global destruction that a nuclear bomb carries. down with slavery posted:Public opinion has jack all to do with why we aren't seeing nuclear plants built today. This is only partially correct. There is certainly a strong economic component to a lack of new builds, yes, but this sure as poo poo hasn't stopped China, because public opinion is on the side of wanting to phase out coal as quickly as possible in order to improve air quality (in addition to China just being able to move much more quickly on key national policy issues due to its single-party nature). Vermain fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Public opinion has jack all to do with why we aren't seeing nuclear plants built today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
Pope Fabulous XXIV posted:So many leftists being blind anti-nuke reactionaries is a symptom, not the disease. Still makes me pretty That wouldn't explain why solar and the like are getting federal subsidies though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 23:06
|
|
CSM posted:Which is why I also said they were expensive to build. Also jack all to do with why we aren't building them. It's about the entrenchment of the fossil fuel industry, plain and simple. Remove the absurd fossil fuel tax breaks, remove the overbearing legislation surrounding nuclear, start forcing power producers to pay for their current externalities (co2) and suddenly nuclear will make sense.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
One of the French PS's election promises was the phase out the country's (successful) nuclear power system, mainly as a concession to anti-nuclear (not necessarily "green") activists. I'm skeptical that it's going to go anywhere given Hollande's political position but it's a worrying sign none the less.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
The issue with nuclear power is more one of lacking a natural constituency than having a really coherent opposition, at least in the US. In Europe there is an actual left-wing and the greens exert real electoral pressure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
E: Ok, I won't beat a dead horse.
America Inc. fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Jun 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
jesus loving christ this thread is on a 5 page loop
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
You see what happens we we don't have Arkane to kick around anymore 
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
Elotana posted:You see what happens we we don't have Arkane to kick around anymore No, he's part of that loop. There is no escape.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:No, he's part of that loop. Confirm/deny I'm too scared to try it myself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
While some people would argue that the overall quality of this thread is decreasing, I've isolated several periods of time where the quality has increased. For example, between pages 54 and 58, 84 and 89, 134 to 139. Based on these upwards trends I cannot imagine how anyone could be ignorant enough to claim there is an overall downward trend. The thread is simply too complex to predict.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:While some people would argue that the overall quality of this thread is decreasing, I've isolated several periods of time where the quality has increased. For example, between pages 54 and 58, 84 and 89, 134 to 139. Based on these upwards trends I cannot imagine how anyone could be ignorant enough to claim there is an overall downward trend. The thread is simply too complex to predict. Voted 5. This thread is going places.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 06:47
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Salt Fish posted:While some people would argue that the overall quality of this thread is decreasing, I've isolated several periods of time where the quality has increased. For example, between pages 54 and 58, 84 and 89, 134 to 139. Based on these upwards trends I cannot imagine how anyone could be ignorant enough to claim there is an overall downward trend. The thread is simply too complex to predict. Personally I feel those are anomalistic and do not represent the overall trend accurately. Additionally back casting in that way is highly suspect. Are you being paid by someone?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 07:24
|
|
|
Sogol posted:Personally I feel those are anomalistic and do not represent the overall trend accurately. Additionally back casting in that way is highly suspect. Are you being paid by someone? EDIT: Removed for legal considerations rivetz fucked around with this message at 05:53 on Jun 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 05:50
|
|
|
You know that guy who's really good at predicting winners in some sports and also happened to call the outcome of the last election (because it wasn't totally obvious)? It turns out that that expertise qualifies him to evaluate all scientific models of incredibly complex systems. There's a whole chapter in his book about forum thread quality, where he explains that all these so-called experts who've been studying thread quality for years have yet to produce a reliable model of it. I mean, come on, he even interviewed a thread qualitologist; nevermind that the scientist responded that he'd misunderstood everything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:You know that guy who's really good at predicting winners in some sports and also happened to call the outcome of the last election (because it wasn't totally obvious)? It turns out that that expertise qualifies him to evaluate all scientific models of incredibly complex systems. There's a whole chapter in his book about forum thread quality, where he explains that all these so-called experts who've been studying thread quality for years have yet to produce a reliable model of it. I mean, come on, he even interviewed a thread qualitologist; nevermind that the scientist responded that he'd misunderstood everything. Wait, Paul the Octopus wrote a book?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 08:25
|
|
|
I've recently had a lecture about deforestation and desertification. The lecture itself was part of a series of guest lectures about all kinds of topics, so not really in depth. But it did have a 2 suprising conclusions, namely, deforestation isn't nearly as big a problem as people would have you believe and desertification is basically a myth. Note that it does say that this is the case globally. The case for the first claim is that countries eventually go through a ''forest transition'' in which forests grow back. Case in point being present evolutions and France now versus France in the past (France now has double the forest area it had in the 19th century). The case for the second claim is based upon satellite data. Basically, the lecture concludes that the earth is getting greener and not browner, as some would have you believe. It makes no claims about biodiversity or global warming which it acknowledges as problems. The slides can be found here: https://hiw.kuleuven.be/ned/lessen/cursusmateriaal/1314/govers-presentatie.pdf They are in Dutch however. So, I was wondering, are the conclusions of the lecture more or less correct? How come that there is so much misinformation if so? I consider myself fairly well informed (i.e., reading about the subject) and was absolutely flabbergasted by the lecture. Additionally, I am wondering about other things I've accepted as being true. Such as man-made global warming. While I still believe this is the case, due to the above lecture and debates I've had with others, I realize I can't point towards objective, independent research that confirms my thoughts beyond reasonable doubts. Sure, I can find articles but not true independent data sets and analyses, independent from the IPCC for example. Does anybody have some pointers towards such data?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Kalenden posted:I've recently had a lecture about deforestation and desertification. The lecture itself was part of a series of guest lectures about all kinds of topics, so not really in depth. The problem with reforestation: young forest is not worth much compared to primary forest, with much lower diversity and different ecosystem services, usually also lower. Restoration of primary forest character takes hundreds of years - Central European national parks with century-old core areas still haven't reattained primary forest character (there is literally one big primary forest left in all of Central Europe!), secondary rainforest is nice but no area deforested in the last century has regenerated properly yet, and it's always fun to go on experimental sites and hear the plant scientists conclude that no, you can't test certain hypotheses because 350 year old Southern Chinese secondary forest is too young to allow conclusions about the long term changes in community structure of primary evergreen broadleaf forests  .In addition, there are things like the species area relationship, so that a fragmented primary forest is basically a death sentence to any large mammals in it (a nice study recently came out, and found that for damned rivers somewhere in SE-Asian evergreen forest even islands of many square kilometres inside the flooded area became devoid of mammals larger than a rat after just 20 years or so). So in conclusion: Deforestation is still a problem. Trading primary forest for a comparable or slightly larger amount of reforestation projects is generally a poo poo deal. People who think land sharing is better than land sparing in any part of the world that still has primary ecosystems left need to have their head examined. Also the whole point of the IPCC activities is to aggregate all the climate research around the world, so the only things not in there are either unimportant or came out after the IPCC report.  suppression of research is probably not a thing, since rich republicans would be lining up to heap money onto anyone with actual good evidence against man made global warming.e: I just saw the lecture slides have the experiments on growth rate of crops at different CO2 partial pressures in them. Those experiments are as correct as they are irrelevant. If CO2 were the limiting factor for growing crops there'd be no point spraying water and fertiliser on them, and water and fertiliser/soil quality are the things currently becoming problematic. Edge cases essentially amount to soon-to-exist genetically engineered rice with C4 metabolism instead of C3, and that modification makes it better at fixing CO2 to a degree beyond any effect of adding a few more percent of atmospheric CO2. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Jun 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
Kalenden posted:But it did have a 2 suprising conclusions, namely, deforestation isn't nearly as big a problem as people would have you believe and desertification is basically a myth. Can you describe the argument as to why forest transition means that deforestation isn't a problem? From what I can tell, forest transition is mostly based on a model of economic development - initially forests are cut down to make space for agricultural activities and for raw materials and fuel, as economic development continues, less new agricultural land is needed (or the amount of agricultural land needed starts shrinking), better sources of fuel are used, and eventually the amount of forest stabilizes, especially as the economic value of trees increases or the ability of the country to spend more on maintaining its forests increases. However, there does not appear to be any guarantees that the new stable level of forest cover will be a significant decrease from the original amount of forest cover. (Actually, if I'm reading things correctly, the forest transition theory means that worrying about deforestation is actually worth it - deforestation will not continue indefinitely - countries will eventually reach a point at which they stabilize their forest cover. However, since the amount of forest cover they stabilize at is not guaranteed, it would seem to me that an attempt to limit deforestation might have the effect of increasing the amount of forest cover remaining once stabilization occurs.) Also, just from a climate change perspective, my understanding is that the reason that deforestation is bad is because forests are a carbon dioxide sink, and deforestation reduces the size of the sink/amount of trapped carbon dioxide. So, even if the forest levels stabilize, unless they stabilize at their initial levels, the size of the carbon dioxide sink will be permanently reduced, which means a permanent increase in the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
Kalenden posted:I've recently had a lecture about deforestation and desertification. The lecture itself was part of a series of guest lectures about all kinds of topics, so not really in depth. The "CO2 is plant food" argument seems to be in there as justification for it not being a problem. And the idea that desertification is a myth is contested at best; most things point to it existing as a problem. The CEI is for desertification being a myth and they're pretty good at being wrong about anything to do with reality (not the only thing I looked at, but it is the funniest).
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
Deforestation can sometimes lead to irreversible changes to local climate and ecosystems. Fragmenting and degrading rainforests can lead to positive feedbacks in rainforest collapse: http://m.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27506349 Permanent loss of animal biodiversity can weaken the ecosystems that succeed deforestation: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-22706402 These ecological feedbacks and climate change could come together to create tipping points that lead to permanent loss of rainforest biomes: http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/amazon/problems/climate_change_amazon/ America Inc. fucked around with this message at 01:50 on Jun 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
Quick reminder that cheap Si solar panels are rapidly approaching grid parity in the U.S. even without subsidies. European markets (Germany) are starting to get fairly saturated and now the big chinese PV players are looking at the U.S. as the next growth market. Attractive PV incentives still exist, and vary wildly from state to state. My home state of MD for example apparently has some of the biggest. A local solar installer made Inc. magazine's list for fastest growing company (by revenue) in ANY industry. http://www.inc.com/profile/astrum-solar. MEANWHILE poor wind power  http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/122-a20/ I don't know how to fix you...
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Snip Thanks! Keep in mind that the lecture was short and a subset of a bunch of other lectures around different topics. So the lecturer did mention that biodiversity (which I think he meant the same thing by as you are describing) it was only in passing. I feel he should have put slightly more emphasis on that. Probably he didn't since the point of the lecture was that the earth is becoming greener, which I suppose is strictly valid, although misleading. moebius2778 posted:Snip I think what the lecturer meant was was that it is less big a problem as previously assumed (most people in my country estimated 75% of global forests to have dissapeared and there is a lot of alarmist media). His conclusion was that the forest transition will globally prevent the earth from becoming 'browner'. eNeMeE posted:Snip Oh, he certainly doesn't claim there isn't deforestation, just that the rate of deforestation is rapidly declining (as can be seen on page 9 of the pdf). Could you provide data about (global) desertification? The satellite data presented in the pdf does seem pretty convincing. Thanks! So, it is generally agreed upon that deforestation purely in terms of amount of trees is declining and probably not as big a problem as generally assumed? But, that biodiversity is rapidly degrading and remains a huge problem today? Except that,
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
Kalenden posted:Thanks! Keep in mind that the lecture was short and a subset of a bunch of other lectures around different topics. I can't read the slides. (I always wanted to go to Leuven.) Could you say why the slides are convincing to you? I think there are considered to be three main causes for desertification: drought, direct pollution and land utilization. Because of increased atmospheric CO2 there is increased evaporation and altered carry rates. The net effect is that drier places get drier and wetter places get wetter, not generalized desertification. I posted a paper up thread on this with lots of data. Convection is also a factor, but not really understood. Proximal cause is often a layer of mold or fungus. Wholistic management advocates for the use of livestock to break up this layer and have shown some good results. That would be in the category of land use. Here is the paper: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3453503&perpage=40&pagenumber=3#post429784696 Sogol fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Jun 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
Kalenden posted:So, it is generally agreed upon that deforestation purely in terms of amount of trees is declining and probably not as big a problem as generally assumed? But, that biodiversity is rapidly degrading and remains a huge problem today? Everything I said is in the links in my previous post. Here is a link that explains what I've said in more simple terms: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3OWgb0Bv-A&feature=kp "Anthropocene" is becoming a more apt term every day. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Jun 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 11:17 |
|
|
Kalenden posted:I think what the lecturer meant was was that it is less big a problem as previously assumed (most people in my country estimated 75% of global forests to have dissapeared and there is a lot of alarmist media). His conclusion was that the forest transition will globally prevent the earth from becoming 'browner'. Hmm. I think there's a potential feedback cycle that the lecturer might be ignoring. As far as I can tell, part of what drives forest transition are strong conservation/land use management/reforestation efforts. Which are going to be driven, in part, by worries about deforestation. It's kind of the entire: worry about future problem -> find solution to problem -> implement solution, preventing problem in the first place -> "Ah hah! Future problem wasn't as big of a problem as you said it was!" Which ignores the fact that the reason the future problem isn't as big of a problem is because steps were taken to solve it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 20:28
|
|