|
How are u posted:Seems like genuinely positive announcement here. It takes an Investor's own house burning down to teach them they can't buy their way out of the climate crisis. This reminds me of how celebrities suddenly get invested in curing some disease or such if they or their kids get affected. Otherwise no on gives a poo poo. Hey, if NIMBYism and gently caress-you-got-mine is dooming this species, at least sometimes it can be helpful.
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2019 19:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 08:07 |
|
|
How are u posted:Seems like genuinely positive announcement here. It takes an Investor's own house burning down to teach them they can't buy their way out of the climate crisis. I happen to know of a major LA exec whose Malibu home was within feet of the recent fire, and he STILL denies climate change.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2019 19:21
|
|
|
Gitro posted:oh yeah come back to me when we can build 'birds' For an investment of 500 million dollars I will build an app which will eventually build a system where you can send a bird to wherever you like to fix the environment from a simple click on your phone. Oops, I'm out of money I need another 500 million.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2019 19:32
|
|
|
I've informed all our employees that, for the good of the planet, I will now be paying them exactly enough for a subsistence lifestyle with no consumerist extras. We'll graciously redirect the salary differences to subsidizing their cost of renting cots underneath their cubicles to further reduce carbon footprints. We'll include the subsidy as a benefit expenditure on their paystub so they know we're honoring our commitment to Mother Nature. Now if you'll excuse me, I have an executive summit in Maldives.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2019 19:38
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Hahaha well if the Getty family want to start undoing the damage they've done to the climate they're going to need to donate a little loving more than that. Seriously maybe if he gave away every penny he owns and then lives his life as an eco terrorist sabotaging oil/gas pipelines then maybe he could be considered ok. Otherwise he's just another dirtbag parasite awaiting climate justice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2019 22:57
|
|
|
had a thought the other night what if eco "terrorists" (really just garden variety industrial saboteurs) are already loving up nuclear and coal plants. like if you were going to do it and try to get away with it, you'd manipulate/bribe/arm-twist dozens of low/medium tier techs to just fuckup and install things backwards. slow roll the project past its financing deadlines. which is pretty much exactly how nuclear construction has gone for decades now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2019 23:55
|
|
|
1glitch0 posted:For an investment of 500 million dollars I will build an app which will eventually build a system where you can send a bird to wherever you like to fix the environment from a simple click on your phone. Oops, I'm out of money I need another 500 million. Yeah the other guy said some bullshit about birds just ""growing"" in cities like come on Mate pull the other one. This sounds like something j can get behind, I'll contact my trust
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 01:54
|
|
|
big tech is where reforestation money needs to come from but i legitimately struggle with communicating with them purely because my techniques don't involve apps, machines, electricity, or any technology invented later than the stone age - not even out of personal philosophy, just that that's all i need and putting useless frills on every invention is how we ended up in this mess in the first place. luckily i can make a beautiful graph
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 02:08
|
|
|
nankeen posted:big tech is where reforestation money needs to come from but i legitimately struggle with communicating with them purely because my techniques don't involve apps, machines, electricity, or any technology invented later than the stone age - not even out of personal philosophy, just that that's all i need and putting useless frills on every invention is how we ended up in this mess in the first place. luckily i can make a beautiful graph Just find an old Wired magazine, read it cover to cover, and regurgitate the buzzwords back. It doesn't matter if you don't know what they mean because the point is just to trick them into believing you're part of the white color nerd community. Once you adopted their smell and have been accepted into the hive then you can infiltrate the brood chamber and feast on the delicious larva hidden within -- uh, I mean that's when you ask them for a donation
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 02:58
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Just find an old Wired magazine, read it cover to cover, and regurgitate the buzzwords back. It doesn't matter if you don't know what they mean because the point is just to trick them into believing you're part of the white color nerd community. Once you adopted their smell and have been accepted into the hive then you can infiltrate the brood chamber and feast on the delicious larva hidden within -- uh, I mean that's when you ask them for a donation expired: .com tired: .net wired: .mobi
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 03:07
|
|
|
nankeen posted:big tech is where reforestation money needs to come from but i legitimately struggle with communicating with them purely because my techniques don't involve apps, machines, electricity, or any technology invented later than the stone age - not even out of personal philosophy, just that that's all i need and putting useless frills on every invention is how we ended up in this mess in the first place. luckily i can make a beautiful graph You're going to instantiate a new wave of climate-hacking using clusters of renewable, root-based bioprocesses. No speed trees here; we're going back to core principles with our new system. Just click the button on this app to find available hackyards or independent climate-concierges to bring about this new reality!
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 03:36
|
|
|
nankeen posted:big tech is where reforestation money needs to come from but i legitimately struggle with communicating with them purely because my techniques don't involve apps, machines, electricity, or any technology invented later than the stone age - not even out of personal philosophy, just that that's all i need and putting useless frills on every invention is how we ended up in this mess in the first place. luckily i can make a beautiful graph Just start calling forests the "green, organic blockchain" and they'll be eating out of the palm of your hand.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 04:05
|
|
|
Sundae posted:You're going to instantiate a new wave of climate-hacking using clusters of renewable, root-based bioprocesses. No speed trees here; we're going back to core principles with our new system. Just click the button on this app to find available hackyards or independent climate-concierges to bring about this new reality! omg i died at hackyards
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 04:39
|
|
|
Sundae posted:You're going to instantiate a new wave of climate-hacking using clusters of renewable, root-based bioprocesses. No speed trees here; we're going back to core principles with our new system. Just click the button on this app to find available hackyards or independent climate-concierges to bring about this new reality!  There Bias Two posted:Just start calling forests the "green, organic blockchain" and they'll be eating out of the palm of your hand. great ideas, i'm appalled
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 05:30
|
|
|
nankeen posted:
What if I told you that the next generation of the climate economy could be held in your hand? That it no longer had to be the size of a redwood tree or take the hundreds of acres of the old paradigm of a forest? We are going to disrupt the way things have been done. With this brand new cutting edge process you can create thousands of plants or trees in any place you'd like. Friends, this process is simple and easy and it needs no link to your phone or laptop at all. Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you: the seed. Our IPO opens Monday. Thank you for your time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 08:10
|
|
|
That sounds pretty innovative but can we change the name to SeedPod?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 10:56
|
|
|
i like that you people can still be funny in the face of despair  it's a good skill to cultivate
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 13:29
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:That sounds pretty innovative but can we change the name to SeedPod? How about the iPod? Has a nice ring to it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 13:38
|
|
|
¡pod!
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 13:45
|
|
|
Hot: the air and water flowing. Bare: the land we called our home. Push to keep the dark from coming, Feel the weight of what we've done. This: the song of unborn children, Hide the heart of who we are. Making war to build our future, Strong, united, working 'till we starve. Hot: the air and water flowing. Bare: the land we called our home. Push to keep the dark from coming, Feel the weight of what we've done. This: the song of unborn children, Hide the heart of who we are. Making war to build our future, Strong, united, working 'till we burn. And we all lift, and we're all adrift together, together. Through the harsh sun, 'till we're lifeless together, together. I couldn't help myself, it was asking for it. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 15:05
|
|
|
Rime posted:Hot: the air and water flowing. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 15:22
|
|
|
Rime posted:[i]Hot: the air and water flowing. Was I supposed to read this in my head to the tune of Do Re Mi from Sound of Music?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 16:23
|
|
|
davebo posted:Was I supposed to read this in my head to the tune of Do Re Mi from Sound of Music? I did the same thing. The Julie Andrews sing song in my head made it particularly unsettling.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 18:50
|
|
|
The hills are alive with the sound of collapse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 19:05
|
|
|
It's a different beat, the original is in the spoiler.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 19:06
|
|
|
So I’m not up to date on climate change research other than I believe the scientific consensus on the subject and am terrified of it. Someone on a different message board posted some “research” which I’m skeptical of to say the least but wanted to see your guys opinion. Basically some researchers out of Finland are claiming that all the climate models are wrong (obvious red flag is obvious) and that cloud cover has a greater effect on climate change than human caused climate change. It seems flawed for a lot of reasons (“cloud cover” doesn’t seem like an explanation on its own and isn’t exactly an input, it’s affected by what humans do I imagine) and it’s not peer reviewed as far as I’m aware (I tend not to disqualify research solely on this basis). https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf Can anyone give a better explanation as to why this is (presumably) junk science? Obviously something that claims all the other models are wrong because they don’t account for X seems suspect right off the bat but just wondering if anyone has the patience for a deeper explanation. It also doesn’t seem like a reproducible study or anything either from what little I can tell.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 19:45
|
|
|
https://skepticalscience.com/ e d u c a t e
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 21:27
|
|
|
TrixR4kids posted:and it’s not peer reviewed as far as I’m aware (I tend not to disqualify research solely on this basis). You should reject research on this basis.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 21:30
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:You should reject research on this basis.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 21:34
|
|
|
TrixR4kids posted:Fair enough, though I know that’s not necessarily a perfect or incorruptible process. What do you mean? There are problems with science (especially statistics based science) and peer review lets some of those problems through. But that only serves to underscore how poo poo the research must be for it NOT to pass review.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 21:34
|
|
|
Peer review is kind of a necessary prerequisite for credibility.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 21:39
|
|
|
Shifty Nipples posted:Peer review is kind of a necessary prerequisite for credibility. If you're not engaging in peer review, you're not doing science. Replicability of results is essential.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 21:41
|
|
|
Shifty Nipples posted:Peer review is kind of a necessary prerequisite for credibility. Yup, it's the bare minimum. It means others in field and adjacent fields have read the research and were unable to find any blatant errors or falsehoods. Stuff that's untrue (whether by accident or by intention) can and does pass peer review, but outright stupid stuff doesn't. For instance, that paper posits that it's the cloud cover that done it, because the cloud cover has a weak correlation with the temperature rise. They then go on to say that this is a variable that wasn't taken into consideration by the IPCC and that actually, CO2 doesn't contribute as much as IPCC suggests. Alright, even if the data is accurate (which I have no basis to know, it's not my area of expertise), all that could mean is that 'cloudiness' is affected by the CO2 concentration. Also, it's a very weak correlation, which they have supported by posting a chart and saying 'look at it.' I can't even find a correlation coefficient in the paper, which probably suggests that it's actually pretty low when you crunch the numbers. Also, the charts they say support their point of view actually support the IPCC as far as I can tell. Also, the paper is 4 pages long, with 5 references, yet claims to have proven something against the consensus of the entire field. Also, the grammar is poor and this would not pass review on that basis alone. Finally... it's not even peer reviewed! dex_sda fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Jul 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 21:46
|
|
|
Also, of the 6 references (pardon my error by saying it was five), 4 are from the same authors, 1 of which is not even published yet. Of the remaining two, one is literally just worldwide data on temperatures, and one is the source of their dubiously used - and only - equation. This is basically worse than a presentation for a bachelor level university class would need to be to get a passing grade. dex_sda fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Jul 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 21:53
|
|
|
dex_sda posted:Also, of the 6 references (pardon my error by saying it was five), 4 are from the same authors, 1 of which is not even published yet. Of the remaining two, one is literally just worldwide data on temperatures, and one is the source of their dubiously used - and only - equation. As for what I was saying about peer review, I thought I remember hearing about certain journals just publishing everything a year ago even when intentionally bad research was submitted. Likewise in certain fields like the research being done in the hockey/sports world certain studies weren’t necessarily peer reviewed early on (it was more of an informal process among the community) when it was beginning but there was some quality work there. So when I argue against climate deniers I try not to solely focus on that fact even if I agree that the peer review process does far more good than bad big picture wise and understand why it’s necessary. Anyhow thanks for digging into it more and answering my questions, much appreciated. That link you posted talks about some of the stuff they address as well (I intend to read more of that site). TrixR4kids fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Jul 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 22:16
|
|
|
That poo poo's crap poorly written by an intern so it's probably something cooked up for the government or a business to pull out and say "see it's not us keep burning oil please"
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 02:13
|
|
|
Shima Honnou posted:That poo poo's crap poorly written by an intern so it's probably something cooked up for the government or a business to pull out and say "see it's not us keep burning oil please" Nah, arxiv is the medium.com of scientific papers because a few legit researchers use it as a way to avoid the shiftiness and shiftiness of regular academic journalism arxiv attracts a crowd of wannabe/insane people who have ideas and so they post them there. The big Corp stuff will be well funded, look snazzy, and probably even be “valid science” just about a very very wrong question.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 02:19
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:arxiv is the medium.com of scientific papers The words that followed do not merit this comparison. apologize immediately
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 02:23
|
|
|
Mawarannahr Bucket posted:The words that followed do not merit this comparison. apologize immediately I mean we’ve got the biggest companies and political campaigns using medium.com to avoid paywalls and editorial concerns, so it’s merited. Just be thankful writing a scientific paper isn’t hip yet 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 02:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 08:07 |
|
|
Greenland caught on fire. This can't be goodquote:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145302/another-fire-in-greenland I have 2 thoughts. First, some of this smoke and soot might be deposited on glaciers and icecaps, darkening them and accelerating melting. This fire probably didn't burn enough area long enough to have much effect there. I wish we could say the same about the millions of acres burning in Siberia, Alaska and the Canadian high Arctic. 2nd, there was a larger fire in the area a couple years ago. This is another example of what used to be an anomaly or a one off event becoming common. As weather changes and events become more and more extreme I am worried that instead of being treated as a warning that we need to collectively do something, these extreme events get put into a context where they are the new normal and people can find examples of the same thing happening in the recent past and complacency continues.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 06:13
|
|
