|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:How is this moving goal posts? And Africa's electricity demand is only expected to grow as they industrialize. I cite South Australia and then you come up with a new location for the goal posts. Africa is easier than South Australia to go to renewables and in many cases better suited for decentralized power.
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2022 17:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:34 |
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:The US Nuclear industry is it's own worse enemy. The US Nuclear Industry is largely being gutted by Fossil interests, and yeah while they have their own issues when everyone's argument is "Gotta be cheap, gotta be now" nothing long term like Nuclear is feasible. VideoGameVet posted:I cite South Australia and then you come up with a new location for the goal posts. What about the rest of Australia. Right now, outside of South Australia, it doesn't look like that is going to scale.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2022 17:16
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The US Nuclear Industry is largely being gutted by Fossil interests, and yeah while they have their own issues when everyone's argument is "Gotta be cheap, gotta be now" nothing long term like Nuclear is feasible. Could be the politics or the power of their coal industry? Maybe?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2022 19:07
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Could be the politics or the power of their coal industry? Maybe? Power of the Natural Gas and Coal Industry most likely. Australia remains a net fossil exporter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2022 19:12
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The US Nuclear Industry is largely being gutted by Fossil interests, and yeah while they have their own issues when everyone's argument is "Gotta be cheap, gotta be now" nothing long term like Nuclear is feasible. Well, the issue is not price or timeframe per se, but rather uncertainty. Nuclear plants get immense pushback from all kinds of groups, which make them incredibly risky investments, and that's the main reason why the private sector in most countries has been shying away from building them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2022 21:25
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Well, the issue is not price or timeframe per se, but rather uncertainty. Nuclear plants get immense pushback from all kinds of groups, which make them incredibly risky investments, and that's the main reason why the private sector in most countries has been shying away from building them. So an example, and Indian Point is my favorite: It was openly attacked by multiple Environmental Groups who pushed for its closure, and a lot of those Environmental Groups were getting funding from Natural Gas groups. Riverkeepers and NRDC being good examples. Now with Indian Point closed, their overall emissions in New York are going up. The problem is the renewables that were promised to replace Indian Point have no materialized as promised, and the electrical connection to Hydro in Canada that NRDC and Riverkeepers pushed as a solution, they now oppose. A lot of these big environmental groups get some really sketchy funding, Sierra Group, Greenpeace, National Resource Defense Council, Riverkpeers, almost all of them are accepting Natural Gas funding. I suspect thats not by accident.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2022 21:27
|
|
|
Anybody have a good resource or bullet point regarding what "needs to happen" to preserve our world? I am somewhat of a single issue guy (climate/ sustainability), but I am absolutely a layman and I have difficulty with the more technical specialized information I encounter when trying to understand these issues. I breathlessly tell everybody I know about our doomed trajectory, and the lie of progress and innovation in the face of this problem (i.e. market based solutions rather then uncomfortable change/hitting the brakes ). Sometimes people ask me what I think should happen, and I immediately feel like a madman because the solutions that I understand are about as likely to happen as whatever dumb poo poo Elon musk promised that day. As I understand it: Shift (huge major shift) away from fossil fuels towards renewable Stronger regulations and enforcement regarding co2, pollution, and deforestation And here's where it really falls apart, an enormous market and cultural change regarding what we create and what we consume, building green infrastructure and mass transit so we all don't have our own vehicles, and using our power and platform to foster these measures across the globe (lol, I know) To shamefully reveal the level of my ignorance, I only reached such a hard line after reading (much of) The Limits of Growth. I never finished it, because reading it makes me problematic. It's isn't the only source I've found, though, of forward thinking people calling out the obvious unsustainability of our world, right up to philosophers during the industrial revolution. It brings despair, rage, and ultimately a feeling of castrated, hopeless powerlessness. I find a set of goals and game plans helps channel that chaos energy from self destructive to constructive, and if I'm willing to admit I haven't 100% "done the work" of immersing myself in the field maybe some of you well read goons can present a more succinct climate agenda than "our world preserves an unjust and unsustainable status quo that enriches the privileged few at the cost of everybody's future".
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 01:03
|
|
|
Honestly, the blogs the BTI posts on the subject are incredibly helpful. Essentially, the answer you'll find is either technological-societal changes or "de-growth". I'm in the the former camp. I haven't read it yet but its absolutely critical people look at the Oil and Gas Industry and look at it from a perspective of engineering not economics. https://twitter.com/DanielYergin/status/1305841796346331138?s=20&t=qU77V1RaIAwKXkfmFIRMDA
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 04:56
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:I cite South Australia and then you come up with a new location for the goal posts. The original article doesn't reference a specific location. My point is that it shouldn't be to anyone's surprise that some wealthy, educated, armed conflict free, etc. countries have been able to dramatically reduce emissions. Africa along with developing nations are going to only continue to industrialize which will increase demand and it doesn't appear it is possible to meet this with solely renewables. What's ironic and wild about all of this is that industrialization is responsible for climate change but the best way for people to protect themselves from climate change is industrialization!  CommieGIR posted:Also the idea that the only energy solutions that can solve climate change need to be cheap reeks of "Capitalism can save us on the cheap, no need to actually significantly invest in low carbon energy!" How come? I'm being serious too because the amount of something costs is a numerical abstraction of the amount of effort required to provide whatever service or product. Sure, I don' t believe we should have "green" energy billionaires but the reason things are expensive isn't necessarily because of lovely rich business people. I'm also entirely comfortable with public funding and ownership. CommieGIR posted:I just have zero faith in energy storage and renewables alone being capable of offset the sheer gigajoules of fossil energy we continue to burn more and more of. Renewables with something like fission backing it? Sure. Same. And this is what pisses me off so goddamn much about the environmentalist crowd that opposes nuclear because the scalability do with this with only renewables without nuclear is extreme. And you'll have to have gas or coal as a base. And even if battery storage does improve, it's likely going to be decades away and I doubt it'll be cheap.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 05:33
|
|
|
https://theliberalpatriot.substack.com/p/climate-catastrophism-is-a-loser https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2020/6/29/on-behalf-of-environmentalists-i-apologize-for-the-climate-scare So is it just me, or does anyone else think they are also seeing more 'Lukewarm' articles in the mainstream press than they did before roughly 2020? And oddly, but not really, its coinciding with politicians in places like America, Australia and Europe doing their best to kick the can down the road and ignore the issue to as great a degree as they can.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 21:20
|
|
|
In my probation text for Thug Lessons, I said that he cropped an image, but I was incorrect. He had just linked the image of the graphs from the paper and not edited it himself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2022 00:15
|
|
|
Hardly matters when the end result was cherrypicking to misrepresent said data in attempt to seek goalposts that could be defended, which was especially rich given that the misrepresentation was contraverted by expert analysis in broader scope and greater trends over time just half a screen down.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2022 05:05
|
|
|
Heck, if I went and tried to defend myself saying "technically I didn't edit anything" after days of careful cherrypicking, goalpost pivoting, diversion, and lying, I'd deserve to be ignored. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2022 05:10
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Again, selective cropping! Do you somehow think that you aren't going to get caught doing this? I did nothing of the sort. I right-clicked the image, reuploaded it to imgur, and posted it. If you look at the original image from the Rahmstorf article (here) and the image I posted (here) you'll notice they are identical. quote:Fake edit: You want me to believe that, in your first post, you were actually talking about just a specific subset of reports' trendline, for a specific derived economic concentration pathway, for the projected outcomes of one specific milestone year that isn't even the conventional headline year that politicians and scientists talk about? You want me to believe that you were that obscure and specific the entire time? Yes, I expect you to believe that my first post was objecting to the claims being posted, not completely different claims you'd only come up with pages later. If someone had said AR4's sea level rise estimates were too low, I'd have agreed (I've brought that up in this thread before as a genuine, if rare, example of underestimation) while emphasizing that shouldn't undermine our confidence in climate science as a whole. I'm going to address this in-depth in a follow-up post. Potato Salad posted:It's 2022 and we're dealing with some guy who context-free posted some...provocative (?) picture of Joe Rogan's soundstage from the perspective of a climate scientist's smartphone. Potato, I posted it because it's the news. Joe Rogan has been a hot topic in climate discourse lately because he invited on climate science denialists Jordan Peterson and Steve Koonin who made numerous inaccurate statements about the science, and I figured people interested in climate might be interested in him having an actual mainstream climate scientist on. At least one person here actually listened to it. The fact you view it as "provocative" is because you, as these repeated examples of you getting it wrong demonstrate, are bound and determined to interpret everything I say in the worst terms you can possibly think up. Potato Salad posted:Heck, if I went and tried to defend myself saying "technically I didn't edit anything" after days of careful cherrypicking, goalpost pivoting, diversion, and lying, I'd deserve to be ignored. This is, frankly, pathetic. If you get caught falsely claiming someone is selectively editing, maybe try, I don't know, apologizing for misrepresenting them, rather than doubling down. It's as though you simply don't care if any of your accusations towards me are correct and are simply throwing poo poo at the wall to see what sticks. With that in mind, I am really no longer interested in engaging with you. I think I've made my point abundantly clear: I believe that we are not systematically underestimating climate change. I have posted statements from several scientists who concur with this assessment and are the whole reason I arrived at this view to begin with. You can review them here and here. I've also posted evidence that historical climate models have been largely accurate in predicting temperature, and to the extent they had any inaccuracy at all, it is not biased in any particular direction, some were underestimates, and some were overestimates. You can review the evidence for that here and here. If you want to share sourced statements from actual climate scientists (as some have already done) who disagree with these statements, I'll be happy to read them and respond. But if you're going to persist in bombarding me with machine-gun accusations of all sort of dishonesty I'm going to ignore it from now on, because it is not adding anything to the conversation and you don't even seem to care that much whether these accusations are even true. Please stick to the science.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2022 15:13
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Please stick to the science. For the Nth time, this is a rhetorical device to frame ones debate opponents as not scientific, because remember just about everybody wants to be scientific and sees people who aren’t as bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 00:48
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Please stick to the science. in that case, i'll trust the scientists who are leaking their findings (part 3) prior to political tampering and influence but we can always look at whatever gets published next month and trust that
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 01:47
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:For the Nth time, this is a rhetorical device to frame ones debate opponents as not scientific, because remember just about everybody wants to be scientific and sees people who aren’t as bad. its facinating how this has emerged as like the lib version of 'freedom of speech' for both covid and climate change.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 03:45
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:its facinating how this has emerged as like the lib version of 'freedom of speech' for both covid and climate change. It’s not a liberal or conservative thing. It’s deeply American thing. It’s got a long history going way way back. At least one president had a future president out measuring animal taints to prove some European philosophers assertions unscientific.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 04:01
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:With that in mind, I am really no longer interested in engaging with you. I think I've made my point abundantly clear: I believe that we are not systematically underestimating climate change. A ton of recent statements you've made have been contramanded by evidence, had to have its goalposts moved into conveniently arcane specifics to remain defensible, had to be cherrypicked out in selective scope, deferred about when asked about directly by mods, or straight-up lied about. You continue to dodge addressing these flaws. Citation: the past four pages, complete with everything cited against your assertions. drat near every poster in the thread criticizing what you've put forward. Yet-open questions from posters and mods alike whose answers you know drat well undermine your ability to save face. Thug Lessons posted:I think I've made my point abundantly clear: I believe that we are not systematically underestimating climate change. What's with your claim in this post, anyway? Who said we're underestimating climate change? Why are you so intent on overlooking every article, every mathematical explanation for, and every first-hand public scientist's account for how one very specific kind of underreporting takes place in one very specific body's reporting, not this "systematically underestimating climate change" [sic] boogeyman that you've now gone and deliberately misinterpreted from other posters yet again-again-again-again. You've made it extremely clear you're not interested in reading what's been provided in this thread to you! You have your hardheaded conclusions and you're making it clear in your post you've read jackshit. Participate or buzz off. Bar Ran Dun posted:At least one president had a future president out measuring animal taints to prove some European philosophers assertions unscientific. I know it's off topic, but please elaborate about taint metrics. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Feb 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 22:44
|
|
|
here for presidential animal taint metrics & climate change mitigation phone apps
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 00:11
|
|
|
Mister President, we cannot allow a taint gap!
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 00:25
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:It’s not a liberal or conservative thing. It’s deeply American thing. It’s got a long history going way way back. At least one president had a future president out measuring animal taints to prove some European philosophers assertions unscientific. i mean sure you can big-brain anything into a longstanding compulsive tick, but right now, in our time and place, the people screaming about 'trusting the science' the loudest are the ones demanding an end to school mask mandates and that anything under 3C is fine
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 00:52
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I know it's off topic, but please elaborate about taint metrics. So a several of the European philosophers thought North American animals were “degenerate “ less evolved and more primitive than the European versions, comte be Buffon puts it in his book. “New World degeneracy” weak feeble because they live in cold wet places. One of the various reasons they give for this is the distance between anus and genitals of various animals, though it was not the sole reason. Buffon extended this theory to naive Americans.: ““…a kind of weak automaton, incapable of improving or seconding her (Nature’s) intentions. She treated them rather like a stepmother than a parent, by refusing them the invigorating sentiment of love, and the strong desire of multiplying their species…In the savage, the organs of generation are small and feeble. He has no hair, no beard, no ardour for the female…. He has no vivacity, no activity of mind…They have been refused the most precious spark of Nature’s fire: They have no ardour for women, and, of course, no love to mankind… Their love to parents and children is extremely weak. The bonds of the most intimate of all societies, that of the same family, are feeble; and one family has no attachment to another… Their heart is frozen, their society cold, and their empire cruel…”” Jefferson was not a fan and thought this was bullshit so he has one of the members of his administration go gather evidence to refute it. Part of refuting : “organs of generation are small and feeble” was measuring particulars of new world animal junk among the measurements taken... taint distances. Anyway “James Madison wrote Jefferson that measurements which he himself had taken on American weasels, and then compared to the weasel’s Old World counterparts, showed how misguided Buffon was. His data, Madison wrote Jefferson, “certainly contradicts his (Buffon’s) assertion that of the animals common to the two continents, those of the new are in every instance smaller than those of the old” So future President Madison measured weasel taints and reported his findings to them current president Jefferson, Edit I’m wrong about Frederick the Great he was dead, I can’t remember who he wrote and can’t seem to find it. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Feb 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 01:07
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:i mean sure you can big-brain anything into a longstanding compulsive tick, but right now, in our time and place, the people screaming about 'trusting the science' the loudest are the ones demanding an end to school mask mandates and that anything under 3C is fine Fundamentalists give a poo poo about abortion because of this American science preoccupation. They didn’t give a poo poo about contraception and abortion when they believed life didn’t begin until birth and not scientific was one of the critiques used to bring them onto that particular issue historically. Basically it is very American to argue: I am being scientific you are not therefore I am correct. But supporting a predetermined thesis like one would if one was writing a humanities paper and claiming to be scientific, isn’t being scientific.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 01:18
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Fundamentalists give a poo poo about abortion because of this American science preoccupation. They didn’t give a poo poo about contraception and abortion when they believed life didn’t begin until birth and not scientific was one of the critiques used to bring them onto that particular issue historically. No, being scientific is being scientific, I.e. being factually in agreement with what is reliably known, and open to uncertainty and speculation where there is less strong relevant evidence. What you are attempting to do is determine if someone is being scientific by analyzing what rhetoric they are using. This is either incredibly stupid, or deliberately dishonest. Reality is the thing that exists regardless of the specifics of the language used to describe it. The climate doesn’t care what people think about it, or what words they use around it. You can’t get any truthful information from analyzing such things, any more than you can from numerology or cabalism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2022 12:03
|
|
|
radmonger posted:No, being scientific is being scientific, I.e. being factually in agreement with what is reliably known, and open to uncertainty and speculation where there is less strong relevant evidence. Language isn't set and words can have different meanings depending on how they're using. If someone quotes your whole post in SpOnGeBoB lettering, they've said the same thing as you, but the meaning is very different.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2022 14:42
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:Language isn't set and words can have different meanings depending on how they're using. If someone quotes your whole post in SpOnGeBoB lettering, they've said the same thing as you, but the meaning is very different. Which is a fact about language and posting, not a fact about climate. No amount of textual analysis or close reading is going to succeed in converting information of one kind into the other. You can’t analyse the pattern of shading on a packet label saying ‘Smoking causes cancer’ and find out anything useful. To know whether or not that is true, someone has to go look at the lungs in the morgue.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2022 15:39
|
|
|
radmonger posted:No, being scientific is being scientific, I.e. being factually in agreement with what is reliably known, and open to uncertainty and speculation where there is less strong relevant evidence. Except you know another poster has already done the work of showing that data was being cherry picked to support a preconceived thesis. So the question is why would you then proceed to ignore the context of the conversation? You know there are whole think tanks and university programs for this end, so people don’t even have to do the work. They can just refer to the latest from whatever “science of freedom research project” on a particular topic says. Yes exactly reality does not give two fucks of a poo poo about what we think.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2022 15:56
|
|
|
I think it is rather obvious/self-evident that known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns all still exist and, in a chaotic system, are more likely to be bad for us than good for us.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2022 16:11
|
|
|
radmonger posted:You can’t analyse the pattern of shading on a packet label saying ‘Smoking causes cancer’ and find out anything useful. I dunno, if it’s size 5 font in beige text on a white field, that tells me quite a lot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2022 16:23
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Except you know another poster has already done the work of showing that data was being cherry picked to support a preconceived thesis. So the question is why would you then proceed to ignore the context of the conversation? I’ve seen no such thing, though I don’t know if that is from not having read all 500 pages of this thread, or due to us having different interpretations of the portion of it I have. In that, TL posts, at great length, scientific details that are in line with the mainstream scientific consensus. Responses to him are either generally either wrong or sarcastic, with some people apparently aiming for the surprisingly tricky goal of being both simultaneously. If my impression is inaccurate, then I guess you can point me at an example where that pattern does not apply?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2022 16:53
|
|
|
radmonger posted:In that, TL posts, at great length, scientific details that are in line with the mainstream scientific consensus. I think a lot of the issue is that TL posts selectively from scientific sources in order to argue that climate change isn’t a very big deal to him personally and the world path is pretty much fine. There are examples of him ignoring a factor or consequence, which is mentioned as a big deal in the scientific report he quotes, and when called on ignoring those select portions, he dismisses that part of the science as unimportant to him and suggests others should also ignore it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2022 17:20
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I think a lot of the issue is that TL posts selectively from scientific sources in order to argue that climate change isn’t a very big deal to him personally and the world path is pretty much fine. There are examples of him ignoring a factor or consequence, which is mentioned as a big deal in the scientific report he quotes, and when called on ignoring those select portions, he dismisses that part of the science as unimportant to him and suggests others should also ignore it. It comes across as a form of gaslighting: post in an "adult in the room" tone, use big words, cherrypick evidence you like and ignore or dismiss the stuff you don't like, etc. all the while claiming that it's actually your opponent who is anti-science.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2022 17:28
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:It comes across as a form of gaslighting: post in an "adult in the room" tone, use big words, cherrypick evidence you like and ignore or dismiss the stuff you don't like, etc. all the while claiming that it's actually your opponent who is anti-science. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2022 18:46
|
|
|
No. He's on the same page with us. Though I understand the mix up as it has also happened to me
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2022 20:38
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:No. He's on the same page with us. Though I understand the mix up as it has also happened to me
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 00:11
|
|
|
While Joe Biden keeps insisting that he is working as hard as he can to make sure Americans have all the cheap gas they want, the IPCC released the next installment of their assessment. Humanity has a ‘brief and rapidly closing window’ to avoid a hotter, deadly future, U.N. climate report says quote:Latest IPCC report details escalating toll — but top scientists say the world still can choose a less catastrophic path Even if we assume that the IPCC report is not overly conservative as usual and that the window of opportunity has not already passed, there's no loving way we're going to be able to avoid the much more catastrophic scenarios that have been projected. The type of "transformational change on a global scale" that is needed ain't been happening. edit: quote:The report finds that many of these effects are at the worst end of past projections. “One of the most striking conclusions in our report is that we’re seeing adverse impacts being much more widespread and being much more negative than expected in prior reports, or than expected at the current 1.09 degrees [Celsius of warming] that we have...” Lmfao, there it is again. I'm sure our resident denialist will come out of the woodwork to handwave this one away too, though! Thorn Wishes Talon fucked around with this message at 13:19 on Feb 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2022 13:16
|
|
|
I'm taking bets on what will end humanity first, climate change or nuclear war
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2022 16:32
|
|
|
Vitamin Me posted:I'm taking bets on what will end humanity first, climate change or nuclear war Eventually, USA will elect a President dumb enough to launch nukes at climate change
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2022 16:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:34 |
|
|
Vitamin Me posted:I'm taking bets on what will end humanity first, climate change or nuclear war Nuclear war as a consequence of actions taken against climate change, apparently. https://mobile.twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1497975596294361089
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2022 16:49
|
|
