Author Topic: The Official Climate Change Thread  (Read 24971 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10222
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Official Climate Change Thread
« Reply #420 on: January 23, 2017, 08:34:15 AM »
'Clean coal' is like saying 'slightly pregnant.'

Obama's two DOE heads:  Nobel prize winning physicist, and a nuclear physicist.

DT's:  Rick, uh, gee this is more difficult than I thought, Perry

(btw, the page on LGBT rights disappeared today as well.)

Be fair, please, and do your homework.  As I understand it, the "removal" was not by Trump (or his administration) and was not in any way "policy related", but was a part of a pre-planned migration of ALL content from under the Obama Administration to a separate website.  This is part of the normal transition process.

http://www.snopes.com/white-house-web-site-trump-changes/

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19407
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Official Climate Change Thread
« Reply #421 on: January 23, 2017, 08:39:59 AM »
'Clean coal' is like saying 'slightly pregnant.'

Obama's two DOE heads:  Nobel prize winning physicist, and a nuclear physicist.

DT's:  Rick, uh, gee this is more difficult than I thought, Perry

(btw, the page on LGBT rights disappeared today as well.)

Be fair, please, and do your homework.  As I understand it, the "removal" was not by Trump (or his administration) and was not in any way "policy related", but was a part of a pre-planned migration of ALL content from under the Obama Administration to a separate website.  This is part of the normal transition process.

http://www.snopes.com/white-house-web-site-trump-changes/

I understand the whole transition between administrations thing, but historical global temperatures and climate data are the same today as they were two weeks ago. Why isn't climate change included on the new site for Trump?

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10222
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Official Climate Change Thread
« Reply #422 on: January 23, 2017, 08:49:16 AM »
By far my biggest concern about Trump's presidency is the environment and climate change. I think he's going to be a disaster in these areas. I can live with most of the rest of his policies, though I don't agree with most, but this is the one area he has the ability to make permanent impact on our country and planet.

It's not only the environmental impact that concerns me too. Economically if Trump's administration doesn't put money into R&D on renewable energy, we're going to end up behind the rest of the world and that will hurt our economy. Fossil fuels are the past, not the future. Everyone with half a brain understands this. Fossils fuels have a place in our society now as we're slowly making the transition to renewal energy, but to go all-in on fossil fuels is a very short sighted stance to take.

That statement also means they'll even go through Sacred Tribal lands to get it. Which is what we are trying to stop still.

That's one of the things that I despise Trump for, but I won't give up and cry about it like a lot of people are doing ("Noooooooooo!")

Let's be concerned, but let's not panic.   If the movement away from fossil fuels is the right move (and I feel it is) then industry will get behind it in one form or another.    This myth that the only way this can happen is by an activist President is crap.  The most stringent emissions regulations ever promulgated - and promulgated without the technology even EXISTING - was implemented by GEORGE BUSH.   And rather than artificially force people to revamp everything immediately, at supreme cost and tremendous disadvantage to American business, it was a phased approach, and - not surprisingly - about a year or so before the deadline, an AMERICAN company unveiled brand spanking new technology - in the form of the most emissions-efficient engine ever produced for mass production - that met the requirements.   

And there's nothing in that statement that either a) says that they will "even go through tribal lands" or that any of the protections currently in place - including our court systems - will be miraculously abolished.   

There are an infinite number of places where the technology we need to be fossil fuel free can be used, and companies that want to stay cutting edge and stay profitable (like, for example, GE and BMW) will create the new technology, and when it becomes cheaper to use those technologies they WILL be implemented, and no one or even five or ten companies can stand in the way.  In fact, I have no doubt that once these technologies become viable, companies like Exxon Mobil will sprain their ankles hopping on the band wagon.

Nuclear is in this boat; they have smaller, cleaner, SAFER "skid mounted" (it's called "packaged nuclear") technologies that don't require the level of investment that everyone thinks about when they think "Three Mile Island"-type installations.   There was a push a couple years ago to put "packaged nuclear" at each of our military installations, and it was shot down (inexplicably, I might add) though some of that was a reaction to the already-treacherous going facing by the various military installations around the country and things like "BRAC" (the mechanism for closing down underutilized military facilities; if your base is facing closure, putting a nuclear plant on it isn't really a recipe for creating neighborhood support.   

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10222
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Official Climate Change Thread
« Reply #423 on: January 23, 2017, 08:52:44 AM »
'Clean coal' is like saying 'slightly pregnant.'

Obama's two DOE heads:  Nobel prize winning physicist, and a nuclear physicist.

DT's:  Rick, uh, gee this is more difficult than I thought, Perry

(btw, the page on LGBT rights disappeared today as well.)

Be fair, please, and do your homework.  As I understand it, the "removal" was not by Trump (or his administration) and was not in any way "policy related", but was a part of a pre-planned migration of ALL content from under the Obama Administration to a separate website.  This is part of the normal transition process.

http://www.snopes.com/white-house-web-site-trump-changes/

I understand the whole transition between administrations thing, but historical global temperatures and climate data are the same today as they were two weeks ago. Why isn't climate change included on the new site for Trump?

It may well be and it might not.    When the complete Trump platform is up, we'll see, and we can comment on that.  That's not what was said above.  There was the implication that on "DAY ONE" Trump "removed references to climate change and LGBT" from the White House website, and that is a patent lie.  It's not accurate.   

Offline Cable

  • Posts: 1511
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Official Climate Change Thread
« Reply #424 on: January 26, 2017, 10:18:40 PM »
By far my biggest concern about Trump's presidency is the environment and climate change. I think he's going to be a disaster in these areas. I can live with most of the rest of his policies, though I don't agree with most, but this is the one area he has the ability to make permanent impact on our country and planet.

It's not only the environmental impact that concerns me too. Economically if Trump's administration doesn't put money into R&D on renewable energy, we're going to end up behind the rest of the world and that will hurt our economy. Fossil fuels are the past, not the future. Everyone with half a brain understands this. Fossils fuels have a place in our society now as we're slowly making the transition to renewal energy, but to go all-in on fossil fuels is a very short sighted stance to take.


Me too. Probably one of my biggest concerns at this point, if not the largest.  Yet I feel like wheels are being spun, going no where fast which is what is needed.
---

Online Podaar

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5553
  • Gender: Male
  • Looks like Fish, tastes like chicken
Re: The Official Climate Change Thread
« Reply #425 on: March 04, 2017, 06:50:07 AM »
A buddy of mine is an atmospheric scientist and astrobiologist. Not only has he worked for years on climate science for Earth, he is an expert on the climate and atmospheric phenomenon on Mars and other planets in our solar system. Over the years he's been pretty patient with lay people, who for whatever reason, have strong opinions about climate change. Apparently, no more.

Perusing Facebook this morning, I ran into this post and thought y'all might enjoy it.

Quote
Is Science Communication Always a Good Thing?

tl;dr. No, it isn't. It can be catastrophically damaging.

The full length version:
As scientists, we are constantly encouraged, persuaded, and sometimes coerced into distilling complex results into a format that can be digested by the general public. We are told, and most if not all scientists I talk to, believe this form of public science communication is a good thing. Rather than accepting this dogmatic proposition, a critical look at important and recent scientific concepts, notably global warming/climate change, strongly suggest that the universally accepted belief (and Iíll call it belief, because as far as I can tell, there is little data to support the idea) that communicating simplified science to the public is a good thing can actually be catastrophically wrong.

Iíve given a lot of thought as to why some scientific topics attract strong opinions by those who are least prepared, educated or skilled to exercise any personal judgement whatsoever. Why is it that the topic of global warming has legions of adamant arm chair supporters and deniers who have no training in climate or atmospheric science, while other scientific topics receive little or no attention from the same legions of the uneducated? For example, most people would find it rather odd and even inappropriate to argue about the details of neuroscience, string theory, or black hole physics. Yet, armed with exactly the same level of ignorance, these same people hold strong and almost immovable beliefs about Global Warming.

It must be something about the topic. My original explanatory hypothesis was that Global Warming elicits strong opinions, because everyone is familiar with weather and climate. We are surrounded by the atmosphereówithout it we would die. Our experience is shaped by the weather and seasons from the moment we become aware of our surroundings. We become especially familiar with the weather and climate where we spend most of our life. We start to recognize patterns, and in that sense, we feel as we have not just familiarity but some level of knowledge about the atmosphere. This, I hypothesized, is the secret ingredient: Familiarity, experience and the false sense of knowledge those two things impart. We have zero personal experience about strings (if they exist) or black holes or neuroscience. Those topics are left to the experts. But when you feel like you have familiarity with a process operating in the world, that can be mistaken for expertise and knowledge of how that process works, and this in turn provides an unjustified confidence in personal knowledge about the actual process.

Lately, Iíve come to accept that my original hypothesis may not be complete. It does a reasonable job at explaining which topics end up in the realm of non-expert opinionators, and false knowledge via familiarity may be a necessary condition. But it may not be sufficient. An additional element may be needed to trigger the realization of latent hubris.

A major trigger that releases the beast of uninformed opinion against the necessary backdrop of familiarity may very well be the sacred but dogmatic cow of public science communication. The very thing it is held to be universally beneficial and important may actually be not only unhelpful but fiercely malevolent. That communication may be harmful is partly predicated on the idea that ďa little knowledge can be dangerousĒ. The more important element is that when scientists engage with non-experts in a discussion about complex scientific topics using watered-down and sterilized concepts, they validate the non-expert's unfounded belief in expertise and further inflate the bubble of hubris. Furthermore, the discussion can magnify the belief that strong, resolute opinions may be generated without having to invest the time that dedicated experts have. Stated differently, the conversation fuels the notion that not only is intellectual laziness acceptable, it is on par with intellectual diligence.

When Iíve engaged with arm chair climate change deniers, I have in the past done so at their level. I donít speak with them as I would with colleagues, because they donít possess the knowledge or expertise to communicate at the level of an expert. I spend what seems like eternity trying to explain complex concepts using simplified explanations in an attempt to get them to understand why their position is incorrect. And, youíre never going to win, because the lack knowledge base of the general denier will never be sufficient for them to understand why they are wrong. Iíve now come to understand that arguing with simplified science is, in many cases, precisely the wrong approach, because it gives the false impression that they have something meaningful and useful to contribute to the discussion. They donít. All this time Iíve been validating their false sense of expertise. And hereís the bigger problem, this doesnít happen on just an individual basis, it occurs en masse when scientists try to simply their science on blogs, or in popular science articles, or in other mass media like popular science television features. This is all thatís needed to trigger that latent hubris among the primed and predisposed public.

In the future, I will likely no longer engage people that have gone down the Dunning-Kruger path of false expertise. Instead, when I hear someone say something like, ďit makes no sense that a change in a trace gas like CO2 can have such a noticeable effect. I donít buy it.Ē, Iíll respond with something like,
"The roto-vibrational absorption lines determined as the eigenvalues of the quantum oscillator model of atmospheric molecules like CO2 interact with specific wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation emitted from the surface and isotropically from the atmosphere. The envelope of actual emission follows the black body planck function, but with spectral features corresponding to the lines of the emitting gas and surface, collisionally broadened. For radiation emitted from the surface, Wienís displacement law dictates that the bulk of the emitted energy falls within a few micrometers on either side of about 10 microns. CO2 absorbs in this wavelength and following from Kirchoffís law also reemits at that same wavelength, resulting in an increase of downward infrared flux convergence. The resultant radiative heating is a function of the local atmospheric density and volumetric heat capacity at constant pressure, assuming a collisionally-equilibrium gas with a Maxwellian velocity distribution, and this energy is radiated isotropically, including the the 2π steradian solid angle towards the ground. Some of that radiation often makes it to the surface, where it may be absorbed, but the precise value of heating, must be determined by solving the Schwarzchild equation of radiative transfer given known spectral properties of all gases and taking into account Doppler broadening of the quantum emission line. Which part of this do you disagree with?"

The above should do a few things. First, it should make them immediately aware that they are out of their element. Secondly, it should chip away at the notion that have the knowledge and expertise to discuss the problem at any sort of technical level. Third, it will convey that lazy intellectualism isnít going to cut it. If you want to have a discussion, youíre going to have to crack the books and actually invest the time to truly understand the problem and the underlying physics. Iím not going to argue a complex problem with you at the level of a 3rd grader.

I am not advocating for a discontinuation of public science discourse, but I am advocating for a recognition that communicating simplified science can be devastatingly counterproductive. Itís important to recognize when that might be. If you are an expert encountering an arm chair expert, rather than validating their inflated sense of expertise, you may be better served by just shutting them down by un-distilling, un-simplifying, and un-watering down your conversation. Speak as you would to your colleagues or as you would argue in a peer reviewed journal submission.

(C) Scot Rafkin

Online lonestar

  • DTF Executive Head Chef
  • Official DTF Tour Guide
  • ****
  • Posts: 15643
  • Gender: Male
  • First Follower
    • Lady Obscure Music Magazine
Re: The Official Climate Change Thread
« Reply #426 on: March 04, 2017, 08:58:10 AM »
Love it. :clap:
Quote from: nightmare_cinema
So should lonestar and I have babies or something now, is that how this works?
Dang, you're easily the coolest fogey I know of

Offline Cable

  • Posts: 1511
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Official Climate Change Thread
« Reply #427 on: March 04, 2017, 10:55:10 AM »
^ I'm really mixed on this. I get part of his intent, in that using more common terms can harm complex things. His third paragraph exactly states however why lay people become involved. Further, climate science is much more impactful to everyone as he states than neuroscience, and certainly more than string theory and black hole physics. Therefore, many more will be interested. My education has nothing to do with atmosphere science, but that doesn't mean I cannot weigh climate change as my most important interest outside of my professional field.

I also think he is running up against just uneducated people. Don't take this too far; I mean that regarding the scientific method that is learned at higher levels of high school (primary school overseas?). More so at the university level, as it is practiced. If I got anything out of undergraduate studies, it was how to look at research in my field, how to create it at a basic level as an undergrad, and how to be critical of it. As a result of this, it made me value *anything* that is created at this same level of rigor. So no, I cannot read a research article on quantum physics and know basically anything that is stated. However, that is what the abstracts are kind of for. I can sure as heck see the structure, know what went into it, and therefore hold it up as an attempt at scientific truth.

However, part of being a teacher is being able to explain in more common terms complex topics. By citing DunningĖKruger, and stating that conversations with lay people will contain nearly all field jargon, he is failing at this. Further, a lot of this sounds condescending.

This all being said, I'm sure he is beyond frustrated. And encounters with deniers, who often may ignorantly pass off science would probably not yield any beneficial conversations anyway.  :biggrin: I know I get frustrated with co-workers who couldn't navigate a research article, let alone have a meaningful conversation on the science behind my profession. And one's who mail in continuing education.  :facepalm:
---

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10222
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Official Climate Change Thread
« Reply #428 on: March 04, 2017, 02:47:52 PM »
^ I'm really mixed on this. I get part of his intent, in that using more common terms can harm complex things. His third paragraph exactly states however why lay people become involved. Further, climate science is much more impactful to everyone as he states than neuroscience, and certainly more than string theory and black hole physics. Therefore, many more will be interested. My education has nothing to do with atmosphere science, but that doesn't mean I cannot weigh climate change as my most important interest outside of my professional field.

I also think he is running up against just uneducated people. Don't take this too far; I mean that regarding the scientific method that is learned at higher levels of high school (primary school overseas?). More so at the university level, as it is practiced. If I got anything out of undergraduate studies, it was how to look at research in my field, how to create it at a basic level as an undergrad, and how to be critical of it. As a result of this, it made me value *anything* that is created at this same level of rigor. So no, I cannot read a research article on quantum physics and know basically anything that is stated. However, that is what the abstracts are kind of for. I can sure as heck see the structure, know what went into it, and therefore hold it up as an attempt at scientific truth.

However, part of being a teacher is being able to explain in more common terms complex topics. By citing DunningĖKruger, and stating that conversations with lay people will contain nearly all field jargon, he is failing at this. Further, a lot of this sounds condescending.

This all being said, I'm sure he is beyond frustrated. And encounters with deniers, who often may ignorantly pass off science would probably not yield any beneficial conversations anyway.  :biggrin: I know I get frustrated with co-workers who couldn't navigate a research article, let alone have a meaningful conversation on the science behind my profession. And one's who mail in continuing education.  :facepalm:

I'm with CableX, if not a little more towards the negative side.  As a lawyer, an engineer (licensed civil engineer) and someone with an MBA, I'm more than used to dealing with people who don't have the vocabulary I do.  Note how I said that:  DON'T HAVE THE VOCABULARY.  Doesn't mean they're "dumb", or "ignorant" or "less smart" than I am.   They just don't have the vocabulary.   It's my job, if I want to communicate with them, to put my thoughts and ideas in a context they can understand.   

I find Scot - with one t (that strikes me as somewhat pretentious) - to be rather arrogant and condescending.   It's not their failure that his point is not getting across, it's his.   

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4433
Re: The Official Climate Change Thread
« Reply #429 on: March 05, 2017, 06:41:04 AM »
Sometimes there isn't a simple explanation, or at least one that still encompasses the truth of the matter. At that point, simplifying just becomes telling lies people understand.

Online Podaar

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5553
  • Gender: Male
  • Looks like Fish, tastes like chicken
Re: The Official Climate Change Thread
« Reply #430 on: March 05, 2017, 07:17:07 AM »
^ I'm really mixed on this. I get part of his intent, in that using more common terms can harm complex things. His third paragraph exactly states however why lay people become involved. Further, climate science is much more impactful to everyone as he states than neuroscience, and certainly more than string theory and black hole physics. Therefore, many more will be interested. My education has nothing to do with atmosphere science, but that doesn't mean I cannot weigh climate change as my most important interest outside of my professional field.

I also think he is running up against just uneducated people. Don't take this too far; I mean that regarding the scientific method that is learned at higher levels of high school (primary school overseas?). More so at the university level, as it is practiced. If I got anything out of undergraduate studies, it was how to look at research in my field, how to create it at a basic level as an undergrad, and how to be critical of it. As a result of this, it made me value *anything* that is created at this same level of rigor. So no, I cannot read a research article on quantum physics and know basically anything that is stated. However, that is what the abstracts are kind of for. I can sure as heck see the structure, know what went into it, and therefore hold it up as an attempt at scientific truth.

However, part of being a teacher is being able to explain in more common terms complex topics. By citing DunningĖKruger, and stating that conversations with lay people will contain nearly all field jargon, he is failing at this. Further, a lot of this sounds condescending.

This all being said, I'm sure he is beyond frustrated. And encounters with deniers, who often may ignorantly pass off science would probably not yield any beneficial conversations anyway.  :biggrin: I know I get frustrated with co-workers who couldn't navigate a research article, let alone have a meaningful conversation on the science behind my profession. And one's who mail in continuing education.  :facepalm:

I'm with CableX, if not a little more towards the negative side.  As a lawyer, an engineer (licensed civil engineer) and someone with an MBA, I'm more than used to dealing with people who don't have the vocabulary I do.  Note how I said that:  DON'T HAVE THE VOCABULARY.  Doesn't mean they're "dumb", or "ignorant" or "less smart" than I am.   They just don't have the vocabulary.   It's my job, if I want to communicate with them, to put my thoughts and ideas in a context they can understand.   

I find Scot - with one t (that strikes me as somewhat pretentious) - to be rather arrogant and condescending.   It's not their failure that his point is not getting across, it's his.

I think you would both benefit from re-reading Scot's post. The subject is the failure of current methods of 'science communication' and how they may be increasing the number of arm chair experts by presenting a false narrative that climate science is easily understood. He's not commiserating on the state of lay people but on the dumbing down of the issues.

I have to say, Stadler, that your last paragraph is so unlike you that I'm half convinced someone hacked your account or you were perhaps over indulging in Monoplowa.  :lol   The first sentence is a perfect, textbook ad hominem! By the logic of the second sentence it is completely your fault that everyone on this forum isn't a Trump supporter.

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4433
Re: The Official Climate Change Thread
« Reply #431 on: March 05, 2017, 08:38:48 AM »
I find Scot - with one t (that strikes me as somewhat pretentious)

Scot is a given name, Scott is a surname.

Offline Cable

  • Posts: 1511
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Official Climate Change Thread
« Reply #432 on: March 05, 2017, 09:33:53 PM »


I think you would both benefit from re-reading Scot's post. The subject is the failure of current methods of 'science communication' and how they may be increasing the number of arm chair experts by presenting a false narrative that climate science is easily understood. He's not commiserating on the state of lay people but on the dumbing down of the issues.



I get that, and agree with that. It's just the way it was presented was arrogant.

And believe me, I have no comfort debating climate science because I know virtually nothing. And this is due to being a lay person. Therefore why it has become political makes it even worse. But arm-chair science seems to be a common thing. Even my field, which seems easy gets destroyed by people trivializing serious disorders via saying "I'm OCD with ____, I'm bipolar today. Don't go schizo" and so on, which also makes that worse.
---

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10222
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Official Climate Change Thread
« Reply #433 on: March 13, 2017, 09:22:01 AM »

I have to say, Stadler, that your last paragraph is so unlike you that I'm half convinced someone hacked your account or you were perhaps over indulging in Monoplowa.  :lol   The first sentence is a perfect, textbook ad hominem! By the logic of the second sentence it is completely your fault that everyone on this forum isn't a Trump supporter.

You know, fair point.   I meant it with better intentions - I have a problem with the notion that "if you were just smart enough, you'd get my point" - and took a shot I shouldn't have taken.   The whole post struck me as arrogant and that was my - admittedly poor - way of commenting on that.  I shouldn't have said that.   

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19407
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Official Climate Change Thread
« Reply #434 on: June 02, 2017, 05:59:05 AM »
I hope other countries grow a pair and carbon tax the shit out of us. Above all other things Trump has done so far, this move is by far the most infuriating. Listening to this man talk about the climate is incredibly disheartening. This guy is against anything that costs an extra dime, regardless of the positive things it will bring to our future generations. He thinks everything is a conspiracy against blue collar billionaires like him.

Throughout his career, Trump has demonstrated a distinct lack of compassion for asbestos victims, calling an anti-asbestos law ďstupidĒ in his 1997 book and irresponsibly claiming asbestos is ďalso 100 percent safe, once applied". "I believe that the movement against asbestos was led by the mob, because it was often mob-related companies that would do the asbestos removal. Great pressure was put on politicians, and as usual, the politicians relented.Ē
« Last Edit: June 02, 2017, 06:37:57 AM by Chino »

Online BlobVanDam

  • Future Boy
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 38208
  • Gender: Male
  • Transform and rock out!
    • BlobVanDam's 3D Portfolio
Re: The Official Climate Change Thread
« Reply #435 on: June 02, 2017, 06:36:05 AM »
So his penchant for trusting his own baseless paranoia and ignorant misinformation over actual facts and advice from the more educated is nothing new? That's reassuring.
Only King could mis-spell a LETTER.
Yep. I think the only party in the MP/DT situation that hasn't moved on is DTF.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10222
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Official Climate Change Thread
« Reply #436 on: June 02, 2017, 08:07:04 AM »
... ďalso 100 percent safe, once applied".

Poorly worded, but he's actually right about this part.   It's only dangerous when it's "friable", which means that it is crumbling, and therefore air borne.  It is a completely legal, legitimate remedy to seal asbestos insulation (and floor tiles) in such a way that it can't crumble and become airborne.   

Not saying nothing about the Mob.  Omerta. 

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19407
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Official Climate Change Thread
« Reply #437 on: June 02, 2017, 08:19:17 AM »
... ďalso 100 percent safe, once applied".

Poorly worded, but he's actually right about this part.   It's only dangerous when it's "friable", which means that it is crumbling, and therefore air borne. 

I get that, but isn't it kind of akin to saying a blasting compound is safe as long as you haven't run the det cord to it yet? It's 100% safe for the time being. I have exposed asbestos in my basement. It doesn't scare me, but I know it's not completely "safe". I'm sure the asbestos in the World Trade Centers was "100% safe, once applied" right up until the buildings fell. You can't measure the overall safety of a substance based on a single state of that substance. Just because lead is relatively safe in a battery doesn't mean it's safe by default to burn in something like fuel. 
« Last Edit: June 02, 2017, 08:27:21 AM by Chino »

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19266
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The Official Climate Change Thread
« Reply #438 on: June 02, 2017, 03:42:46 PM »
I hope other countries grow a pair and carbon tax the shit out of us. Above all other things Trump has done so far, this move is by far the most infuriating. Listening to this man talk about the climate is incredibly disheartening. This guy is against anything that costs an extra dime, regardless of the positive things it will bring to our future generations. He thinks everything is a conspiracy against blue collar billionaires like him.

Throughout his career, Trump has demonstrated a distinct lack of compassion for asbestos victims, calling an anti-asbestos law ďstupidĒ in his 1997 book and irresponsibly claiming asbestos is ďalso 100 percent safe, once applied". "I believe that the movement against asbestos was led by the mob, because it was often mob-related companies that would do the asbestos removal. Great pressure was put on politicians, and as usual, the politicians relented.Ē


I don't think this is entirely off base. As I've already said, I think our withdrawal from the Paris Accord isn't such a big deal insofar as the Earth is concerned. It's politically problematic, but then welcome to year 1. We'll probably go on behaving much the same as we would have while still a member of the compact. I also don't think Trump hates the Earth or wants to see it fucked up. There's no reason to make such a drastic assumption. I do think he's shallow enough to completely ignore the implications of his actions, though. As I keep saying, he only cares about the immediate result, process be damned. A trait he's demonstrated over and over and over. He's the sort of guy that'd spend years scouring the Earth for the last 12 remaining whales, rather than working early to make sure there's a continuous supply. In this case, clearly he thinks this will save jobs in the coal industry (I don't, and if it did we shouldn't anyway) and that it'll save a ton of money (won't do that, either) and these are the only sorts of things he cares about. Grab all we can right this second and fuck the consequences.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Cable

  • Posts: 1511
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Official Climate Change Thread
« Reply #439 on: June 02, 2017, 05:30:27 PM »
He cares about the economy and business. Anything else takes a back seat, and will not get in the way. His speech, and SockPuppetPruitt's statement revolved around these things. As I said in the 100days thread, I don't remember hearing the word climate in the part of speech that I heard. SockPuppet mentioned the word environment I think twice in his statement; he is the EPA head! The problem is when you claim you are doing things for jobs, economy and blah blah. And these specific choices (coal production) leads to environmental damage. So even if he says I don't want to destroy the environment, choosing to focus on jobs over innovation and helping the environment dictates otherwise. You cannot have it both ways here. Having a wide open, restriction-less energy business will lead to environmental destruction. Because there is no incentive to innovate, and the old guard is too large. Profit business is about maximum profit, so paying twice as much (probably not that much) for clean power will be a negative. Why do companies make products overseas- more profit, it's simple. And if his actions stick beyond his term(s), this will actually hurt making Merica great "again." Other countries are going to continue to lap the US in green technologies. What happened in the 70's and 90's when viable options for cleaner auto propulsion were being developed?

Does anyone want to go back to when tobacco wasn't regulated? Smoke em' up on planes, because not being allowed to smoke on planes infringes of Phil Mo. making money.
---

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10222
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Official Climate Change Thread
« Reply #440 on: June 03, 2017, 09:39:42 PM »
... ďalso 100 percent safe, once applied".

Poorly worded, but he's actually right about this part.   It's only dangerous when it's "friable", which means that it is crumbling, and therefore air borne. 

I get that, but isn't it kind of akin to saying a blasting compound is safe as long as you haven't run the det cord to it yet? It's 100% safe for the time being. I have exposed asbestos in my basement. It doesn't scare me, but I know it's not completely "safe". I'm sure the asbestos in the World Trade Centers was "100% safe, once applied" right up until the buildings fell. You can't measure the overall safety of a substance based on a single state of that substance. Just because lead is relatively safe in a battery doesn't mean it's safe by default to burn in something like fuel.

But on the same token, anything is dangerous in a single state of the substance, and that doesn't mean we ban it.  Water can kill you if you ingest too much of it in a short time.  Should we then ban it, or mock people that say "some reason is in order"? 

We allow things - driving comes to mind quickly - that have far more likelihood of causing harm, and in far more random ways, and yet you say "asbestos" and "Trump" in the same sentence and all hell breaks loose. 

I'm reminded of the book "Risk", by Dave I Can't Remember His Name, and he recounts the story of a woman - think Erin Brockovich, but it wasn't her - fighting tooth and nail to get some chemical out of the water, because it had an elevated cancer risk.  He wrote how during a break, she went outside and smoked two cigarettes to 'relax', and he calculated the risk to be something like a 1,000 times more likely she'd get cancer from the cigarettes as opposed to the water.  But humans...

« Last Edit: June 03, 2017, 09:54:43 PM by Stadler »

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10222
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Official Climate Change Thread
« Reply #441 on: June 03, 2017, 10:02:18 PM »
He cares about the economy and business. Anything else takes a back seat, and will not get in the way. His speech, and SockPuppetPruitt's statement revolved around these things. As I said in the 100days thread, I don't remember hearing the word climate in the part of speech that I heard. SockPuppet mentioned the word environment I think twice in his statement; he is the EPA head! The problem is when you claim you are doing things for jobs, economy and blah blah. And these specific choices (coal production) leads to environmental damage. So even if he says I don't want to destroy the environment, choosing to focus on jobs over innovation and helping the environment dictates otherwise. You cannot have it both ways here. Having a wide open, restriction-less energy business will lead to environmental destruction. Because there is no incentive to innovate, and the old guard is too large. Profit business is about maximum profit, so paying twice as much (probably not that much) for clean power will be a negative. Why do companies make products overseas- more profit, it's simple. And if his actions stick beyond his term(s), this will actually hurt making Merica great "again." Other countries are going to continue to lap the US in green technologies. What happened in the 70's and 90's when viable options for cleaner auto propulsion were being developed?

Does anyone want to go back to when tobacco wasn't regulated? Smoke em' up on planes, because not being allowed to smoke on planes infringes of Phil Mo. making money.

Why does it always have to be "BLACK" or "WHITE"?   Why does anything that isn't full on, 100%, sign up for the latest environmental protest support have to immediately be "all he cares about is PROFIT PROFIT PROFIT".  This is so short-sighted and simplistic.    I can recount several instances - and I have, here - that document as soon as the regulators got off their sanctimonious asses and realized they had to be practical and work WITH business instead of always poking them like animals in the cage, things started to get done in FAVOR of the environment.   I get that some industries have a net negative effect on the environment - and I'm with el Barto 100% on coal being a dead end - but to think that this is ALL economic - and not just an attempt to balance the scales in a more fair manner, something the Obama Administration patently failed to do on all levels - is just being partisan the other way.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19407
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Official Climate Change Thread
« Reply #442 on: June 05, 2017, 05:54:25 AM »
... ďalso 100 percent safe, once applied".

Poorly worded, but he's actually right about this part.   It's only dangerous when it's "friable", which means that it is crumbling, and therefore air borne. 

I get that, but isn't it kind of akin to saying a blasting compound is safe as long as you haven't run the det cord to it yet? It's 100% safe for the time being. I have exposed asbestos in my basement. It doesn't scare me, but I know it's not completely "safe". I'm sure the asbestos in the World Trade Centers was "100% safe, once applied" right up until the buildings fell. You can't measure the overall safety of a substance based on a single state of that substance. Just because lead is relatively safe in a battery doesn't mean it's safe by default to burn in something like fuel.

But on the same token, anything is dangerous in a single state of the substance, and that doesn't mean we ban it.  Water can kill you if you ingest too much of it in a short time.  Should we then ban it, or mock people that say "some reason is in order"? 

We allow things - driving comes to mind quickly - that have far more likelihood of causing harm, and in far more random ways, and yet you say "asbestos" and "Trump" in the same sentence and all hell breaks loose. 

I get what you're saying and I'm not trying to break hell loose. Like you said, we have to weigh the risk vs reward when looking at what substances should be legal and how they're regulated. Water can kill you, but it's also necessary for cell division. Driving can be dangerous, but it's an accepted hazard for the sake of a thriving populace and economy. Asbestos is neither of those things. Not even close. Trump's statement about the asbestos itself isn't even what really bothers me, it's the fact that he has to couple it with a conspiracy. Instead of saying "yeah, this is a really dangerous substance when not in the ideal state, let's find something that won't kill you", he immediately shifts blame to something (mob lobbying) to avoid having to acknowledge the future. The dude sent out an email over the weekend with Infowars as the source (https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-apos-political-arm-205058283.html). That's concerning to me, and it really bothers me that our sitting president gets climate advice from a guy that thinks Sandy Hook was a false flag created with child actors who didn't actually get killed.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10222
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Official Climate Change Thread
« Reply #443 on: June 05, 2017, 06:57:58 PM »
I'm with you on that, especially the latter piece.  That to me is just plain callous. 

Offline Cable

  • Posts: 1511
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Official Climate Change Thread
« Reply #444 on: June 06, 2017, 07:18:54 PM »

Why does it always have to be "BLACK" or "WHITE"?



To me you are applying an emotional construct to science Stadler. And that is part of the problem. I would agree black and white frameworks of doing most of anything are less than ideal though.


Quote

Why does anything that isn't full on, 100%, sign up for the latest environmental protest support have to immediately be "all he cares about is PROFIT PROFIT PROFIT". 



Because the time to be grey, open and let people be people has passed. Science here has a 95% consensus last I heard of atmospheric scholars. My statistics are out of practice, and are limited to social stuff. But 95% is a statistically significant cutoff in a traditional bell curve if I recall.

Further, this has been turned into a money thing. It was said so right in the speeches- the accord was unfair to the U.S. money wise, alleged to put too much of the burden on the U.S., and took away jobs from Jane & Joe Coalminer. The worse part is there was no mention of a counter-proposal. I thought that is how negotiation is done, which is what this deal pull out was mostly about, right?


Quote

This is so short-sighted and simplistic.   



If you say so. Lumpining me into narrow, black and white thought is also black and white thought, no?


Quote

I can recount several instances - and I have, here - that document



That's great you have spoken a lot in this thread. I don't recall everything you said though Stadler, nor do you for my limited points most likely. I commented earlier that this is all a shame it has become political, because science shouldn't be. But then again, Dinosaurs might not have lived 65million years or more ago either. Evolution is bunk too  :P :coolio


Quote

...as soon as the regulators got off their sanctimonious asses and realized they had to be practical and work WITH business instead of always poking them like animals in the cage, things started to get done in FAVOR of the environment.   



This isnt being short-sighted, and simple? Blaming inaction on regulators, and them being too zealous? My example stands: businesses generally take more profitable measures if it is left up to them. Us as humans take simple measures in life often, and we all like saving money. The problem is we have had 30+ years to full-measure right this ship; it's still sailing around in circles because of half-measures or no measures. I know the documentary has been written off as liberal rubbish, but Who Killed The Electric Car? is a good example of *everything and everyone* failing ultimately due to half-measures.


Quote

I get that some industries have a net negative effect on the environment - and I'm with el Barto 100% on coal being a dead end - but to think that this is ALL economic - and not just an attempt to balance the scales in a more fair manner,



It's not, and I never said it was. I said things take a back seat to economy and business, which maybe fine under some circumstances. Not here though. That time has passed awhile ago as I stated earlier. Each year that passes, things are projecting to be worse and worse from the scientists.

How was this agreement or accord so unfair for the U.S., outside of the developing country support? This pullout also could have more harmful results beyond the environment.


Quote

something the Obama Administration patently failed to do on all levels - is just being partisan the other way.



This is not partisan, black and white talk? I know often you play devil's advocate Stadler. And examples of leaving the choice upon people to not smoke in public probably simplifies things too much. So using my wheelhouse for a more a-political angle; psychiatry once held that free-associating for three to nine hours a week was very useful. After that, leucotomies and ECT were useful for a huge chunk of mental health diagnoses.  Especially in the U.S. Once however thorazine scientifically showed that it caused less damage, with long-term more desirable outcomes, should the free market have decided that one? If ice-pickers offered better deals than pharmaceutical companies, people should chose?

Blaming current issues from things in the past and/or present to one side will get us right back to another 1992 or 2008.
---

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19407
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Official Climate Change Thread
« Reply #445 on: June 08, 2017, 06:00:58 AM »
I never realized that the Chinese have been perpetuating this hoax for over a century now.



Online BlobVanDam

  • Future Boy
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 38208
  • Gender: Male
  • Transform and rock out!
    • BlobVanDam's 3D Portfolio
Re: The Official Climate Change Thread
« Reply #446 on: June 08, 2017, 06:27:27 AM »
Definitely fake news.
Only King could mis-spell a LETTER.
Yep. I think the only party in the MP/DT situation that hasn't moved on is DTF.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10222
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Official Climate Change Thread
« Reply #447 on: June 08, 2017, 09:50:43 AM »
Why does it always have to be "BLACK" or "WHITE"?
To me you are applying an emotional construct to science Stadler. And that is part of the problem. I would agree black and white frameworks of doing most of anything are less than ideal though.

How so?  (And don't confuse the science itself, with the APPLICATION of that science to non-scientific functions like politics).   I do think science is - or can be - black and white, but we're not talking about pure science here.    The world is getting warmer, as an absolute.  That is not up for discussion.   How much is man-made?  0%? Not likely.   100%?  Not likely.  So where is the number?  NOT BLACK AND WHITE.   Past that, assume we're 50% responsible (it can be any number).  Then what?  Are we legally obligated to terminate any and all activities that comprise that 50%?  Nope.  Morally obligated?   I don't know. Some would say yes, others might not.   That is not at all black and white, is, to some degree, emotional, but isn't SCIENCE.   

Quote
Quote
Why does anything that isn't full on, 100%, sign up for the latest environmental protest support have to immediately be "all he cares about is PROFIT PROFIT PROFIT". 
Because the time to be grey, open and let people be people has passed. Science here has a 95% consensus last I heard of atmospheric scholars. My statistics are out of practice, and are limited to social stuff. But 95% is a statistically significant cutoff in a traditional bell curve if I recall.

See above.  Assuming that we'll take "95% confidence" as "100%", not unfair (we do that all the time), "95% confident" of WHAT?  That we have SOME impact? That we have 100% impact?   And even if we concede all that, we haven't even gotten to the "let people be people" part; what does that MEAN?   Because a scientist says, with 95% confidence, that the earth is warming, and humans have more than 0% contribution to that, do I have a moral or legal (or both) obligation to no longer burn Yankee Candles in my living room?    Who says? 

Quote
Further, this has been turned into a money thing. It was said so right in the speeches- the accord was unfair to the U.S. money wise, alleged to put too much of the burden on the U.S., and took away jobs from Jane & Joe Coalminer. The worse part is there was no mention of a counter-proposal. I thought that is how negotiation is done, which is what this deal pull out was mostly about, right?

Well, to pull out or not is not the place for "counter-argument".   That may or may not come, I can't speak to that, but you're not wrong on that point.    But who said that your "SCIENCE" is more important than Jane and Joe Coalminer?   Turn this around; while Obama was President, it was deemed that the 10% of the population that DIDN'T have healthcare - regardless of whether they WANTED it or not - was more important than the rest of the population (or at least more important than the 50% of the population who had to pay significantly more each month in order to accommodate the 10%); so why do the 10% (or whatever the percentage is of "Jane and Joe Coalminer") or more macro, the U.S. (as opposed to the world) don't?   

Quote
Quote
This is so short-sighted and simplistic.   
If you say so. Lumpining me into narrow, black and white thought is also black and white thought, no?

Maybe, maybe not.  I'm not necessarily "lumping you in" with anything.  I'm critiquing the tendency of our current culture to reduce everything to "black and white" and encapsulate it all in 140-characters or less. 

Quote
Quote
I can recount several instances - and I have, here - that document
That's great you have spoken a lot in this thread. I don't recall everything you said though Stadler, nor do you for my limited points most likely. I commented earlier that this is all a shame it has become political, because science shouldn't be. But then again, Dinosaurs might not have lived 65million years or more ago either. Evolution is bunk too  :P :coolio

I don't even know what that means.   Evolution is, to the best of our knowledge at this point, not bunk.  There is also evidence for the creatures we have come to know as "dinosaurs".   I guess you're being sarcastic, but I'm at a loss as to what end.


Quote
Quote
...as soon as the regulators got off their sanctimonious asses and realized they had to be practical and work WITH business instead of always poking them like animals in the cage, things started to get done in FAVOR of the environment.   
This isnt being short-sighted, and simple? Blaming inaction on regulators, and them being too zealous? My example stands: businesses generally take more profitable measures if it is left up to them. Us as humans take simple measures in life often, and we all like saving money. The problem is we have had 30+ years to full-measure right this ship; it's still sailing around in circles because of half-measures or no measures. I know the documentary has been written off as liberal rubbish, but Who Killed The Electric Car? is a good example of *everything and everyone* failing ultimately due to half-measures.

Maybe my synopsis is "simplified", but I am more than willing to expand.   Do you really want me to lay out the process by which the various brownfields programs evolved in this country?   Do you want me to lay out - in excruciating detail why the current cutting edge technology in freight locomotive propulsion is the cleanest, most environmentally efficient combustion engine that humans have ever created?   

I'm with you 1000% on the notion of "half-measures".  I literally could not agree with you more.   But that doesn't mean that all FULL measures are good and just and efficient.    I strongly disagree with your premise about "corporations"; THAT'S the liberal rubbish in your post, not the documentary you cite.   I worked in the environmental department of a Fortune 5 company for years, and they did the "right thing" more often than not.  That's not to say that they didn't do the right thing in an economically efficient and sound way, but rarely, if ever, was there a moment where the decision was black and white "Profits" versus "the right thing".   The challenge to us - and in large part why that company is still regarded as the "best managed company in the world" - was always, DO BOTH.   Figure it out, but DO BOTH.    Not a coincidence that that same company is the only manufacturer of the aforementioned most environmentally efficient combustion engine ever.   


Quote
Quote
I get that some industries have a net negative effect on the environment - and I'm with el Barto 100% on coal being a dead end - but to think that this is ALL economic - and not just an attempt to balance the scales in a more fair manner,
It's not, and I never said it was. I said things take a back seat to economy and business, which maybe fine under some circumstances. Not here though. That time has passed awhile ago as I stated earlier. Each year that passes, things are projecting to be worse and worse from the scientists.

But why does it seem to many of us that "back seat to" really means "isn't the only factor considered"?   And you keep misapplying the science; the scientists DO say we're continuing to get warmer, but riddle me this, Batman?   How is our adherence to that agreement - proactively, and on nothing but faith - going to change that if the world's largest polluter (and growing) does nothing?   

Quote
How was this agreement or accord so unfair for the U.S., outside of the developing country support? This pullout also could have more harmful results beyond the environment.

I've answered this too many times now. 

Let me use an analogy, and - unfortunately for me, this is a true story.    I was in my dorm as a freshman.  One night, we were in my next door neighbors room, and there were about 15 of us, including only about one or two girls.   And this guy - he later became a good friend, but then he was just a junior who seemed really cool, we'll call him "Abbott" - reminded some of the other non-freshman of that time that "we streaked across the quad, and it doubled the number of girls at the party".  So this other junior - also later a good friend, we'll call him "Costello" - said to me and a couple other freshman, "you guys should do that.  Bring back some girls!".    (For those still reading, "Bringing back girls to the party" = a good thing = by analogy, "improving the environment".)    We hedged.  We weren't sure about this.   So Abbott says, "I'll go with you.  We'll do it together."  ("I'll go with you.  We'll do it together." = a coercion to get me to comply = China, agreeing to the deal as a coercion to get it signed).    So we go downstairs to the main door, about six of us, and we all strip naked.  Abbott says "Here's the plan:  we're going to run out that door, turn right, and run to [this other dorm].  Yell up to their quad that there's a party, and run back.  The girls ought to be here in a half hour, tops."  So we opened the door, committed, and ran.   I was the second to last, with only Abbott behind me, to go out the door, so I was the only one to hear the slam and click as the door was closed and locked behind us, with no Abbott.  He was looking out the glass and laughing.   Shortly, he was back upstairs, with all his clothes on, laughing with the rest of the party at how gullible we were.   ("Outside", "gullible" = taken advantage of by another looking to assert authority, and us with no recourse to enforce our "good faith" bargain = the U.S. after we invest in climate change and China doesn't, then crushes us on the global market, probably selling technology to us that they aren't using themselves).   


Quote
Quote
something the Obama Administration patently failed to do on all levels - is just being partisan the other way.

This is not partisan, black and white talk? I know often you play devil's advocate Stadler. And examples of leaving the choice upon people to not smoke in public probably simplifies things too much. So using my wheelhouse for a more a-political angle; psychiatry once held that free-associating for three to nine hours a week was very useful. After that, leucotomies and ECT were useful for a huge chunk of mental health diagnoses.  Especially in the U.S. Once however thorazine scientifically showed that it caused less damage, with long-term more desirable outcomes, should the free market have decided that one? If ice-pickers offered better deals than pharmaceutical companies, people should chose?

Blaming current issues from things in the past and/or present to one side will get us right back to another 1992 or 2008.


Well, when the two sides are acting the same, it's a fair analogy.   My position on this is not inherently "right" or "left".  I'm not at all represented well by either party, and in fact I didn't vote for either party in the recent election.  I tend to vote Republican, only because I don't value identity politics at the same level as economic ones - I think that identity politics have no hope of surviving if there isn't economic strength first.   Look at any dictatorship in the Third World for proof of that), but I am a pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, anti-death penalty, pro-legalization of marijuana (actually, I'd go much further) "Republican".   As for your specific example, I don't at all consider pharmaceuticals to be an effective metric of "free market capitalism".  Obama would not have had to cut a $80 million back-room deal to preserve their profits in order to get the ACA passed if it was. 
« Last Edit: June 08, 2017, 10:25:37 AM by Stadler »