|
I didn't expect conservatives to come out against the concept of intelligent tool-use, but if you're going to be a throwback you might as well go all the way to the australopithecines.
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 14:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 13:15 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Marco Rubio announced that if the Climate is changing, then we should do nothing to stop it as obviously that is what god wants.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
TACD posted:If that's the case then it doesn't take a huge leap to argue that climate scientists are agents of the devil trying to subvert god's plan. Climate science is literally the work of the devil. Seeing how some people believe God buried the dinosaur bones just to test our faith, and that paleontology is the devil's work so yeah, wouldn't surprise me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
Does anyone think the ExxonMobil news deserves its own thread?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
TACD posted:If that's the case then it doesn't take a huge leap to argue that climate scientists are agents of the devil trying to subvert god's plan. Climate science is literally the work of the devil. Actually some people do believe that. Doesn't matter what the numbers say; the Bible says the Earth doesn't change so it can't get hotter. If temperatures are higher than average it's just a temporary thing that will go away because this rock just does that sometimes so drill baby, drill.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Does anyone think the ExxonMobil news deserves its own thread? What news?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
With thanksgiving around the corner, what's the best response to a dumb relative spewing FOX climate arguments and full denial. I've used the DOD's Climate Change Adaptation Road Map while asking, why would the military plan for its inevitability if it were fictional? I've had some ok success ending the crazy uncle spewing nonsense by having him choose if the infallible military is wrong about their assessment of risk or it's all made up. Any tips?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 07:44
|
|
|
Junkyard Poodle posted:With thanksgiving around the corner, what's the best response to a dumb relative spewing FOX climate arguments and full denial. I've used the DOD's Climate Change Adaptation Road Map while asking, why would the military plan for its inevitability if it were fictional? I've had some ok success ending the crazy uncle spewing nonsense by having him choose if the infallible military is wrong about their assessment of risk or it's all made up. Any tips? The best response is silence. Trust me, you'll never convince these people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 09:02
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The best response is silence. Trust me, you'll never convince these people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 11:10
|
|
|
Banana Man posted:What news? The newest is ExxonMobil lost 47% of it's earnings? idgi either boohoo we earned only 4 loving billion dollars this quarter
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
The Real Foogla posted:The newest is ExxonMobil lost 47% of it's earnings? idgi either boohoo we earned only 4 loving billion dollars this quarter They'll lobby themselves into a government subsidy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
Silence would be best, but isn't really an option because by his 4th drink, he'll be spewing fox "just saying"s and mentioning the weak administration. He's a vocal force of dumb. I know I won't change his mind, but I'd like to give the rest of the family point to consider.
Junkyard Poodle fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Nov 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
Junkyard Poodle posted:Silence would be best, but isn't really an option because by his 4th drink, he'll be spewing fox "just saying"s and mentioning the weak administration. He's a vocal force of dumb. I know I won't change his mind, but I'd like to give the rest of the family point to consider. Well I'd get even more drunk and yell even dumber things. You know, hold a mirror up and see how he likes how he looks. "Well no black person has ever said they aren't actually Martian lizard people here to collect our welfare and are using mind control to get it and some people are saying they are. Hey, nobody ever denied it and I'm just asking questions! *hic* gimme another." "Some people are saying that Obama is actually a magical rock from Ganymede. He's never denied it. What are you hiding, Rockbama?!? Ever wonder why he's called ba-ROCK Obama?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
Slightly related, but the guy who did the studies showing Fukushima's radiation is not a major risk is getting delightful death threats: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/canadian-researcher-targeted-by-hate-campaign-over-fukushima-findings/article27060613/
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Junkyard Poodle posted:Silence would be best, but isn't really an option because by his 4th drink, he'll be spewing fox "just saying"s and mentioning the weak administration. He's a vocal force of dumb. I know I won't change his mind, but I'd like to give the rest of the family point to consider. You just have to adopt his frame of reference. Using an authoritative source like the DOD which is acceptable from his perspective is necessary, but you also need an argument which fits within his ideological narrative. For example if he starts on about Obama's weakness agree with him, and make a point about how he's letting China surge ahead of America in solar and nuclear development. Why does America have to buy CHINESE solar panels? Why is BIG GOVERNMENT giving billions in subsidies to coal and oil companies? In my experience the prerequisite for an open and honest discussion is the implicit belief everyone upholds the same values. It's when an opinion on an issue becomes a Rorschach test for ideology that debates become shouting matches. If you can make this conversation about the best tactics for Making America Great Again, you might at least keep him listening.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Slightly related, but the guy who did the studies showing Fukushima's radiation is not a major risk is getting delightful death threats: I get death threats posting on this forum, is this really something to be scared of these days? Some 13 year old kid saying he's gonna kill you? Also, how is this related at all?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I get death threats posting on this forum, is this really something to be scared of these days? Some 13 year old kid saying he's gonna kill you? People shittalking you on a pseudonymous forum is different from getting threats through personal communications as a consequence of doing your job.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Also, how is this related at all? Nuclear is one of the best ways to fight Climate Change, and eliminating bias against it using actual scientific claims goes a long way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Nuclear is one of the best ways to fight Climate Change, and eliminating bias against it using actual scientific claims goes a long way. OK, what's your plan?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Nuclear is one of the best ways to fight Climate Change, and eliminating bias against it using actual scientific claims goes a long way. Speaking of Nuclear, if they can actually build plants on schedule for once, they'll be able to keep the fleet size stable in the U.S. http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/11/new-nuclear-plants-in-us-may-offset-the-planned-closures/ Luckily, nuclear isn't the only non-carbon emitting power technology and the others have been able to deliver on schedule with reducing costs. So all our eggs aren't in one basket.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
The other day, I stumbled across a pretty awesome video that covers the majority of the issues that our fossil fuel based society faces in the coming decades. Lots of detailed information presented in an entertaining, easy to understand format. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOMWzjrRiBg&feature=youtu.be
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Luckily, nuclear isn't the only non-carbon emitting power technology and the others have been able to deliver on schedule with reducing costs. So all our eggs aren't in one basket. Like what other tech?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Like what other tech? The cost per-kwh for wind and solar has been falling dramatically and likewise, wind and solar projects have a better record of completing on time than nuclear in the west. Also, note what I originally said. Wind and solar are both "non-carbon emitting power technology that have been able to deliver on schedule with reducing costs," I in no way claimed them to be a panacea. In particular for climate, where the idea of electrifying transport globally in time is not realistic. Electricity is only one of many areas we need to be making strides as fast as we can.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Mass gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet greater than losses, NASA study reports http://phys.org/news/2015-10-mass-gains-antarctic-ice-sheet.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Mass gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet greater than losses, NASA study reports An interesting note from that quote:But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica's growth to reverse, according to Zwally. "If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they've been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years—I don't think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses."
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
I wonder if there's some hemispheric localization going on with the warming, higher ratio of open ocean to populated land area and such.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
Figured I'd post this here too, Indiegogo is now helping the Heritage Foundation raise funds to gently caress up the Paris climate talks: http://www.sciencealert.com/indiegogo-is-helping-climate-change-deniers-raise-money-to-derail-paris-talks quote:Amid calls for Indiegogo to pull the campaign page down, the crowdfunding company has demurred, citing that Heartland’s effort to raise funds isn’t breaching any of Indiegogo’s terms of service. Riiiiiight.  They had no problem destroying Kim Davis' campaign after all the blowback they got from allowing the funding of other bigots, so I'm guessing if this becomes unpopular enough they'll find a way here as well.
Mercury_Storm fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Nov 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
Banana Man posted:What news? Are you joking? The news that ExxonMobile's head scientist presented its executives with in-house research showing 3 degrees of global warming due to carbon dioxide emissions in 1978.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:Figured I'd post this here too, Indiegogo is now helping the Heritage Foundation raise funds to gently caress up the Paris climate talks: The logic behind it is at least sound - it isn't discriminatory or related to a de jure crime. However, it's blatant political sabotage and as such they may want to be considering the ramifications of kickstarting that type of activity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The cost per-kwh for wind and solar has been falling dramatically and likewise, wind and solar projects have a better record of completing on time than nuclear in the west. But Solar is in no way ever going to replace on demand plants like Nuclear. It just uses way too much land for too little output.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:But Solar is in no way ever going to replace on demand plants like Nuclear. It just uses way too much land for too little output. Solar or wind alone no. But remember my original point was "non-carbon emitting power technology that have been able to deliver on schedule with reducing costs" in that, right now we can be pretty clear that solar and wind projects can bring non-carbon electricity on the grid and that historically, the price to do for those two technologies have been dropping steadily. Right now, which is when we need to act, wind and solar are feasible (not every project, but at large). But to discuss the challenge you raise: improvements in the grid, storage, conservation, status quo nuclear, and renewables (+biogas, biomass) mixed together is a technically and economically feasible solution that can replace a system where we focus our entire grid on making sure our huge expensive plants stay on all the time. It is also one that allows us to front-load renewables, reducing carbon from electricity as fast as we can. If we lived in a different reality, where we could viable plan, license, build and bring online new site nuclear power in the US in the next 15 years and do so on time and on budget, an increased nuclear fleet would seem a vastly more realistic solution to me. But we really can't. Blame hippies, lack of academics, international labor unions, greedy contractors, regulated-to-safety, or whatever but we can't just wait a decade for new nuclear plants, we need to build as much of what we can build now. Which is wind and solar. Yes, its not a final solution, but it is a feasible pro-climate electricity technology that we can deploy now. As always, I have to disclaimer that I have a rather U.S. centric knowledge, and I know that so much of energy is geographic and what works in the US wouldn't work globally.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:The other day, I stumbled across a pretty awesome video that covers the majority of the issues that our fossil fuel based society faces in the coming decades. Lots of detailed information presented in an entertaining, easy to understand format. Sort of disappointed that this video entirely handwaved away breeder reactors as a failure neglecting to mention that said failures weren't technical but entirely political.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
We're melting, what a world! What a world! http://phys.org/news/2015-11-west-antarctic-ice-seas-meters.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Are you joking? The news that ExxonMobile's head scientist presented its executives with in-house research showing 3 degrees of global warming due to carbon dioxide emissions in 1978. Ah ok, I wasn't sure if anything else had come out. Seems like climate change related stuff is coming out much faster than can be kept track of these days. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:Sort of disappointed that this video entirely handwaved away breeder reactors as a failure neglecting to mention that said failures weren't technical but entirely political. Yeah, the video really shortchanges some of the alternative energy sources and just doesn't spend enough time on them in general. However, I felt that it ultimately didn't detract from the overall point that nearly any energy source we can come up with is going to be subject to some kind of limitation eventually, while our behavior and general historical trajectory assumes infinite growth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:The other day, I stumbled across a pretty awesome video that covers the majority of the issues that our fossil fuel based society faces in the coming decades. Lots of detailed information presented in an entertaining, easy to understand format. Some minor nitpicks. They're conflating economic growth with growth in energy/resource consumption which is contrary to observed trends in modern economies. They also mention urban populations as a result of cheap energy which isn't really true. The suburbs were created with, and is sustained by, cheap energy - cities thrived well before fossil fuel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 07:03
|
|
|
The suburbs are unequivocally a result of cheap energy (both electricity and transportation fuel) and it's incredibly ignorant to claim it's the densely-populated urban centers that waste energy and not the thin-spread SFR sprawl that have metastasized over the last 50-60 years or so. gently caress, the transportation differences alone are enough to know that's wrong as hell. This is like the "condoms have holes big enough to let HIV through" bullshit. It's so laughable you basically have to trade in the most gullible or unaware population segments in order to get anyone's attention.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 07:56
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Mass gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet greater than losses, NASA study reports This sounds about right and somewhat matches with GRACE, but notice that their observation window ends in 2008. Recent GRACE data has pointed to slight ice mass losses over the very recent past. The main point in these studies to the public should be that the amounts of ice in either direction (whether they are gaining mass or losing mass) is minuscule. Tenths of a millimeter (thousandths of an inch) per year. Has 0 impact on anyone. Greenland is definitely melting at an above zero rate according to GRACE, but even that melt rate is extraordinarily slow and unlikely to contribute meaningfully to sea level rise any time this century (maybe ~2 inches by 2100). NYT did a story on Greenland the other day entitled "Greenland is Melting Away" which probably gave the uninitiated the impression that the collapse of that ice sheet was imminent in the next few decades. They buried the lede that the scientists that the article was about did not have data yet lol. Your Sledgehammer posted:The other day, I stumbled across a pretty awesome video that covers the majority of the issues that our fossil fuel based society faces in the coming decades. Lots of detailed information presented in an entertaining, easy to understand format. Honestly, I think you'd need to be ignorant of basic world events to describe that video as awesome. It is just flat out wrong on oil usage/supply (oil supply is growing and demand weakening, leading to massive price decreases), wrong on food supply (humanity is making more food on less land AND more food per human, and that trend is unlikely to stop), and wrong on renewables (which are seeing explosive growth and efficiency gains). Just to highlight one facet of the video, it describes US electricity consumption in 2007 as 48.6% coal, 21.5% natural gas, and 2.5% other renewables. In a mere 7 years, the 2014 number was 39% coal, 27% natural gas, and 7% other renewables. That is a huge change in a small amount of time. As ever, the fatal flaw of Malthusian predictions is the expectation that human ingenuity and invention will cease or be inert (this has never been true, ever, in fact it is accelerating with the aid of computers). Worse, it derides the solution -- technological advancement/efficiency gains, both of which fuel economic growth -- as part of the problem. We're not going to have an oil-based economy for very much longer, another generation or two. It is simply too inefficient, and humans are way too smart to keep using it. Peak oil, or any of its "the end is near!" cousins, are legit embarrassing beliefs to hold. Arkane fucked around with this message at 10:40 on Nov 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 10:36
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I get death threats posting on this forum, is this really something to be scared of these days? Some 13 year old kid saying he's gonna kill you? It turns out self declared greens can be just as dumb and dishonest as the average Drill Baby Drill moron and are making an attempt at being just as dangerously stupid as well. See also: genetic engineering.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 10:58
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 13:15 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:But to discuss the challenge you raise: improvements in the grid, storage, conservation, status quo nuclear, and renewables (+biogas, biomass) mixed together is a technically and economically feasible solution that can replace a system where we focus our entire grid on making sure our huge expensive plants stay on all the time. It is also one that allows us to front-load renewables, reducing carbon from electricity as fast as we can. And without grid storage or a completely redesigned grid, it doesn't matter how cheap it is to install renewable capacity. Beyond a certain point, the capacity couldn't possibly be utilized. ANIME AKBAR fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Nov 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 15:29
|
|
