https://m.phys.org/news/2017-11-scientists-countries-negative-global-environmental.html
Human well-being will be severely jeopardized by negative trends in some types of environmental harm, such as a changing climate, deforestation, loss of access to fresh water, species extinctions and human population growth, scientists warn in today's issue of BioScience, an international journal.
The viewpoint article—"World Scientists' Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice"—was signed by more than 15,000 scientists in 184 countries.
The warning came with steps that can be taken to reverse negative trends, but the authors suggested that it may take a groundswell of public pressure to convince political leaders to take the right corrective actions. Such activities could include establishing more terrestrial and marine reserves, strengthening enforcement of anti-poaching laws and restraints on wildlife trade, expanding family planning and educational programs for women, promoting a dietary shift toward plant-based foods and massively adopting renewable energy and other "green" technologies.
Global trends have worsened since 1992, the authors wrote, when more than 1,700 scientists—including a majority of the living Nobel laureates at the time—signed a "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity" published by the Union of Concerned Scientists. In the last 25 years, trends in nine environmental issues suggest that humanity is continuing to risk its future. However, the article also reports that progress has been made in addressing some trends during this time.
The article was written by an international team led by William Ripple, distinguished professor in the College of Forestry at Oregon State University. The authors used data maintained by government agencies, nonprofit organizations and individual researchers to warn of "substantial and irreversible harm" to the Earth.
"Some people might be tempted to dismiss this evidence and think we are just being alarmist," said Ripple. "Scientists are in the business of analyzing data and looking at the long-term consequences. Those who signed this second warning aren't just raising a false alarm. They are acknowledging the obvious signs that we are heading down an unsustainable path. We are hoping that our paper will ignite a wide-spread public debate about the global environment and climate."
Other links:
Here is the official page where you can read the full article, endorse the article, view signatories, and endorsers
Direct link to full article in PDF
(Score: -1, Troll) by jmorris on Tuesday November 21 2017, @04:50PM (68 children)
It might, might, improve credibility if they weren't using an old Soviet front group. Yall do know the Cold War is over now and the historians have started admitting some of this stuff and yea, Union of Concerned Scientists was totally a Soviet puppet organization.
(Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday November 21 2017, @05:05PM (27 children)
Mmm... the "attack the messenger" line. Should have arm yourself with more than bullshit though.
[Citation needed]
Because, you see, the 1992 World Scientists' Warning to Humanity [ucsusa.org] happened in... guess when?... surprise, 1992.
The Soviet union dissolved in 1991 [wikipedia.org] and I guarantee you that for the previous 3-4 years nobody had "cold war" in mind - but rather "perestroika" and "revolutions" - I know this, I was involved in one of the latter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @05:46PM (3 children)
Soviets also supported the Black Panthers and the KKK, but that doesn't mean they started or operated either. It's a matter of providing money and organizational skill.
Since the groups operate on their own, they can at least coast along after the loss of Soviet help. Some last longer than others.
Russia has continued the tradition. Those protests against Trump were partly supported by Russia.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @05:54PM (2 children)
Doubling down on shite just gives you more shite, fellow human...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @06:16PM (1 child)
Guilt by association
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:22PM
Thanks, Donald!
(Score: 1, Informative) by jmorris on Tuesday November 21 2017, @06:44PM (22 children)
Wiki won't outright name UCS but does allow Soviet influence on the peace movement [wikipedia.org] to stay up. And yes UCS was deeply involved in the same movement to defang the West. And look at this [discoverthenetworks.org] history of where they came from, where their money comes from and who their allies are. See any non Prog political allies? Show me your friends and I'll tell you who you probably are. There is of course much more but Google is doing a much better job of not returning useful results on CrimeThink searches these days. Some of us were alive and politically aware back in the Reagan Administration though and don't need a webpage to tell us which side the Union of Concerned Scientists was on.
And more important, I realize you fuckers are impervious to evidence so why bother adding more? Any reasonable person reading along has enough to see where I'm arguing from and you can't be reasoned with at all.
(Score: 4, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:21PM (19 children)
(lemme see how I'll be doing on the invectives-for-stylistic-purposes dept)
Bullshitting then covering your ass. Typical jmorris, no surprises there.
Rest assured, us fuckers aren't interested in the old monkey asshole that you are (don't make me remind you what the dick niggers do and don't)
Ah, there it comes... behold... the... god
The genius that prepared himself for a historic Cold War meeting by reading Tom Clancy thriller [independent.co.uk], the bluffer that brought the world closer to a nuclear war [wikipedia.org] second only to the Cuban incident.
The brilliant mind behind enriching the 1%-ers by increasing the spending rate of 2.5% per year to be repaid from taxes paid by the lesser - the pissing-down economy or whatever it was called.
Here are some of his other achievements:
Pissing-down economy in action
Sure, jmorris, worship Reagan, admit that shit-of-an-actor-playing-president is a 3 orders of magnitude better than you'll ever be; you will be absolutely right on this one, your mother should have let you go and keep the stork.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:13PM
My 3rd point in the "achievements list" is missing this source of the blockquote [shmoop.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:21PM (9 children)
Reagan was "good" compared to Carter, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., Obama, FDR...
That doesn't mean Reagan was flawless. He was pretty bad!
Not even Trump is flawless. There is the net neutrality issue, the failure to lock her up (so far), the lack of a Muslim ban... but overall we're looking at the best president in at least a century. Still, he definitely isn't flawless.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:53PM (7 children)
0.5/10, could tell you weren't serious within 5 seconds. Go back to Ivan and tell him he's paying you too much.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:24PM (6 children)
I look like a troll to you because you are out of touch with America.
I may be a bit more to the right than most Americans... but not that much. The polls denying that America loves Trump mean about as much as the ones that gave him a 2% chance of winning.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday November 21 2017, @11:12PM (5 children)
I get it, I get it, most of my fellow citizens are idiots. Seems to include you too. You're still not worth what Ivan's paying you even if that's nothing.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @02:29AM (4 children)
Apparently the US slightly-less-right-than-the-other-party have never heard of the term pyrrhic victory, and completely fail to understand the even-more-right Heinleinian mentality of "your status in Hell depends on the size of your honor guard".
You keep fucking over the deplorables and then pissing on what they have left. And are then surprised that they don't want your Witch-in-Chief, and that they won't support you.
So which party has even more morons than the other one?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:57AM (3 children)
What in Cthulhu's borderline-unpronounceable name makes you think I actually liked Clinton? I want to see her entire dynasty searing in hellfire right next to the Bushes and for most of the same reasons. Here's a hint, shithead: the ones fucking over the "deplorables" have been the GOP, and this has been the case since the Civil Rights Era.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @03:01PM (1 child)
More Americans were horrified of the Clinton Creature, than were terrified of the Trump Tampon - and you call those Americans idiots? Apparently you are an idiot equal to your fellow Americans if you actually thought one was preferable to the other. The Democrats robbed the voters of a choice. Stop whining about the GOP - that party gave in to it's consituents, unlike the fascist fucking demoncrats.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @09:12PM
Why do the deplorable Trumpsters get so upset about people pointing out how completely idiotic and totally hornswaggled they are? You should just "own" the stupid. Not doing so only makes you look more stupider. You stupid Trump voter. Idiot. Parsnip.
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @03:03PM
superstitious, much?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:58AM
Not even. Ha. Ha, ha. This is too funny. Worst president Ever, and he had to bump George "Dubya" Bush out of that slot, which I guess is no mean feat. So not even Trump is flawed, but by not having any redeeming qualities, other than noticing how much it made himself feel good about himself to pardon turkeys, all be himself. I have a growing suspicion that this AC is one of those turkeys. And, death to all Trump supporters, and may they roast in oven, or be deep-fried, and be served with cranberry sauce. Deplorable, just deplorable.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:44PM (7 children)
That includes state level jobs over which no US president has control. Federal jobs increased under Obama by about 10% [washingtontimes.com]. Meanwhile, it appears that the number of federal employees increased under Reagan by roughly 300k from 5.0 million in 1980 to 5.3 million in 1988. So smaller in both number and percentage.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:03PM (5 children)
Maybe, but it allows Obama to rightfully claim more jobs created in the private economy than his predecessor - certainly better than Reagan by this metric [cnn.com].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:36PM (4 children)
I think there's good reason to blame Obama for the 5 million job loss between January 2009 and February 2010 as well as the glacially slow recover from that point to the November 2016 election.
(Score: 3, Touché) by c0lo on Tuesday November 21 2017, @11:11PM (3 children)
Scroll lower until you get to "The Obama administration derives that figure by looking at how many private sector jobs (so excluding government jobs) have been added since the lowest point during the Great Recession."
Other metric.
Translation: "I'm the opinion there are reasons..."... how does this work when I haven't seen the reasons you claim stay at the base of your thinking?
Et tu, Brute?
I was hoping that complaining about the "heavy burden inherited from the previous regime" is a whinging that only the politicians in the former communist countries would use - I heard it so many times I decided to immigrate.
Come on now, it's unbecoming... whoever is using this is painting himself as unworthy to be elected and a liar: they promised strength and described how they'll fix everything... and what do we hear? Whinging about how much "eviler were the previous regime" than "the promissor's feebler good fiber and potency to deal with the reality"? Gaahhh.
(continue to do this and every time I'll deduct a bit of from your amount of respect I granted you just because you're a human. No, I'm not grinning this time)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:57AM (2 children)
Here's an example of what I'm talking about. Back in early 2009, the Obama administration via two administration economists, Christine Romer and Jared Bernstein, came up with a chart [thinkprogress.org] rationalizing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), a bit of economic stimulus comprised of short term spending and tax cuts to the tune of $800 billion.
There are three curves on that chart all related to the standard measure of unemployment in the US. One curve is their projection of US unemployment for the few years after the recession started when no stimulus was attempted. A lower curve was the projection of unemployment over the same time period, if the ARRA were enacted (with slight changes, since the projection predated the final ARRA bill passed). The final curve is of actual unemployment over that time period which is significantly higher throughout the entire period (the linked story only goes through roughly mid 2011, but unemployment rates [bls.gov] remained higher than the 5% target through to 2016) than either of the projections and didn't settled down to pre-recession levels by the end of the time period.
So the obvious question here is why did that happen? The party line is that the recession was worse than expected and the higher unemployment rates were due to an unforeseen crash in labor markets that could have been addressed by an even bigger stimulus. The linked story above blames the Federal Reserve despite their considerable efforts to push the economy via monetary policy.
My view is that Obama was the problem that was bigger than foreseen. For both his terms, he had implemented a variety of hostile business law and regulation. Why would businesses gratuitously hire people in those circumstances? For example, even by mid 2011 when the above story was written, the divergence from plan was still 3% higher unemployment above the projected ARRA rates.
Here's a couple of charts [businessinsider.com] that illustrate the problem nicely. We've had a bunch of recessions since the end of the Second World War in the US. Aside from the 2001 and 2007 recessions every one of them took off in employment rate once the economy started to recover. And GDP has been remarkably slow to recover compared to every other such recession, including the 2001 one. I think the big difference was that no other recession had a president who was more concerned about ideological policy implementation than the economic recovery of the US and it shows in a recovery that has taken both terms to come about.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @03:44AM (1 child)
Clearly, we should work to recreate the conditions that existed prior to 1980: higher taxes on the wealthy and stricter banking regulation.
While BI is giving us partisan spin, the graphs don't appear to lie.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 22 2017, @04:02AM
Then when we take those away, we'll get the desired economic boost. /sarc
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday November 22 2017, @06:01AM
khallow, the Washington Times is Moonie central! If you cite them you loose what little credibility you have here amoungst the soylentils. Sometimes, when people say "citation needed", it is best to not cite somewhere that weakens your argument, as opposed to your usual oblivious rebuttal strategy of just going with the bare unsubstantiated irrational right-wing talking point.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:02PM
It never occurred to you that the reason for which UCS isn't listed there could be because they weren't sponsored by Soviets?
I mean, you can't rationally reject this possibility, can you? Without proof, it's up to anyone mind if it accepts the claim or not. Usually, I tend to discount them, that's noise not information.
I'm looking and what I see is:
I can't see "Soviet" and I can't see "Russia" or "Putin" (a thing that I can't say about you current Agent-Orange-in-chief, but let's drop this for the moment)
Most (all?) of those organizations are based on... (let me try to use a word that should be to your liking).... yuuuge wealth accumulated by capitalistic means, so I fail to understand what you have to grumble on UCS funding sources.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:01AM
Some of us are old and can't separate nationalist propaganda from our own thoughts and thus prefer to avoid sources of information which might trigger cognitive dissonance #TIFIFY
(Score: 1) by insanumingenium on Tuesday November 21 2017, @05:08PM (27 children)
I will admit, I am not familiar with the group, but a quick google and a cursory glance at their wiki makes them seem like a run of the mill MIT based anti-nuclear anti-climate change advocacy group. How exactly are they a soviet front group? And perhaps more philosophically, does that change the message, we're all fucked together on this one, and a large number of credentialed experts agree (I'll admit, I am taking that these are credentialed experts on TFA's authority).
(Score: 3, Informative) by Sulla on Tuesday November 21 2017, @05:22PM (23 children)
How can you be anti-nuclear and advocate for stopping greenhouse gasses? Nuclear is the only true viable solution. Wind and Solar are great but it would be hard to scale that for our whole country in a time frame where it can make a difference. It is sad to know that Hydro is a problem now because of the rise and fall in water levels causing plant decay, anyone have the link to that soylent article?
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 3, Informative) by NewNic on Tuesday November 21 2017, @06:17PM (16 children)
Because of this:
"Building new renewables is now cheaper than just running old coal and nuclear plants. [thinkprogress.org]
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @06:38PM (2 children)
If the title is true, there is no need to do anything, the market will take care of it before long.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by meustrus on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:02PM
Not if Big Government gets in the way of renewables by unfairly subsidizing coal, oil, and natural gas. And don't forget all the onerous regulations imposed on homeowners wanting to install home solar arrays. Too bad about that
climate researcherenergy industry conspiracy to stifle innovation and keep our infrastructure in the stone age.If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 3, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:56PM
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:11PM (12 children)
And anyone who can claim that fossil fuels are more expensive in the developing world than in the developed world is doing something very wrong.
Who really believes that when cost of labor and materials is greatly lower in these countries than in the US?
(Score: 3, Informative) by NewNic on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:33PM (7 children)
LIAR!
'Versions 6.0 – 11.0 present the LCOE on an unsubsidized basis, except as noted on the page titled “Levelized Cost of Energy—Sensitivity to U.S. Federal Tax Subsidies”'
https://www.lazard.com/media/450337/lazard-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-110.pdf [lazard.com]
Just look at the title of this graph:
https://www.lazard.com/media/450333/chart-1-finally.jpg [lazard.com]
"Hurr, Durr... I know better than someone who spends most of their life studying this topic ...."
You ignore the cost of capital which the report notes is likely to be higher in non-OECD countries.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: -1, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:55PM (6 children)
In other words, the analysis can contrive scenarios where unsubsidized cost of renewable sources (other than hydro, of course) can be cost competitive with the unsubsidized cost of non-renewable sources, but in general it's not.
FTFY.
One doesn't buy capital with labor and materials. One builds it.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:32PM (5 children)
So you assert that Lazard is in the business of promoting renewable energy sources? Do know what Lazard is? It's an investment bank, it's unlikely to be promoting renewable energy unless it really thinks that it is a good investment.
As a capitalist, you should understand that this is back to front. Or perhaps you are just a know-nothing blowhard?
One uses capital to buy labor and materials in order to build and operate assets. That capital comes with an assumed interest rate: the cost of capital.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: -1, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:40PM (4 children)
And hence, where it would profit them to promote their "good investments".
There is no understanding in your quote. It is claimed that the cost of capital is high in developing world countries. But once again, what is the cost of such? It is primarily the cost of labor and materials, particularly when you get to fundamental infrastructure like power plants.
No, one uses a medium of trade to buy the above, usually money.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:01PM (3 children)
Posting this for the benefit of the financially illiterate.
Cost of capital refers to the opportunity cost of making a specific investment. It is the rate of return that could have been earned by putting the same money into a different investment with equal risk. Thus, the cost of capital is the rate of return required to persuade the investor to make a given investment. [investinganswers.com]
What is 'Cost Of Capital' [investopedia.com]
The cost of funds used for financing a business. Cost of capital depends on the mode of financing used – it refers to the cost of equity if the business is financed solely through equity, or to the cost of debt if it is financed solely through debt. Many companies use a combination of debt and equity to finance their businesses, and for such companies, their overall cost of capital is derived from a weighted average of all capital sources, widely known as the weighted average cost of capital (WACC).
As can be seen, it has nothing to do with the cost of labor and materials.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: -1, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:39PM (2 children)
Further, we're missing a big point here. Why would an investment of equal risk have a higher cost of capital associated with it in a developing world country than in a developed world country? What's the market inefficiencies making this happen at all? A key inefficiency is that the big money is coming in from the developed world. That will always distort a market in a contrary direction to the source of the big money. So investors throwing money in from their developed world location are paying more, including cost of capital, than someone local in a developing world locale. Not all investment comes from the developed world and it won't have the same problems with cost of capital. Cost of capital differs with where your money is located.
I father this is one of the many wealth transfer mechanisms from the developed world elsewhere as they pay a premium for such developing world capital.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:45PM (1 child)
There is no arguing with someone who is militantly ignorant.
You adopted your usual style: 3 wise monkeys. Just ignore or deny anything that doesn't fit your world view.
It's not about me missing your point: it's about you denying well-sourced information.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 23 2017, @03:57AM
Now presumably some day it will become true just because these sources of power appear to be getting cheaper while most of the rest aren't. But once again, it hasn't happened yet.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:39PM (3 children)
You assume they have skills to do so. Labor and materials may be cheap, but that doesn't translate instantly into being able to deploy nuclear facilities. You need expensive and long term training for your citizens before you have enough people in your talent pool. That's one of the advantages countries with big populations have, more trained scientists. Of course, that's only with a good educational system, which is why the U.S will crater sooner than later. Our real talent are in their 60's, 70's and 80's right now.
If your own country can't provide the skill, how do you attain it? I would imagine paying for it, which is what would raise the costs up. I don't think it's a coincidence that developing countries often seek reputable foreign companies that possess those skills.
Then we can get into just how damn dangerous conventional nuclear facilities are. They would need newer designs, such as thorium reactors. It makes so much more sense for them to wait for the first world countries to develop the tech, and then they implement the tech themselves at a later point, or purchase it. An older conventional design would require so much more security and maintenance.
You forgot something else, which surprised me for you :)
Regulations. Those are what makes a screw cost $10k. When you are that paranoid about your reactor having issues, which seems very healthy to me, you need to spend a lot more money in doing even the simplest things. Like sourcing a fucking screw.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:56PM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:40PM
Ahhh, that's what you meant by conventional. I was stuck in nuclear.
Yeah, you have a point. Burning coal is cheaper there if the labor and materials are cheap.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:18PM
Burning coal has high maintenance costs - many power stations are old enough.
Unless you build new coal fired stations, which translated into investment. Investment which most of the banks will think twice before financing.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @06:24PM
Easily, for sufficient pay.
(Score: 1) by insanumingenium on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:19PM
Sorry, in retrospect I wasn't clear. They are anti nuclear weapons. I have no idea what their policy stance is on nuclear power. But it looks like from 63-92 their primary message was nuclear disarmament.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:49PM
Easy. I am, and I'm not. Nuclear is extraordinarily bad for the environment, which is completely unarguable. What has become very clear is that the endemic corruption in the U.S produced dangerous and costly nuclear facilities. To be fair, this science was heavily under development.
I'm completely against all nuclear facilities that use the older conventional designs, and are subject to the corruption and regulations that make screws cost 10k. That's why it costs taxpayers so damn much, and then ultimately it just makes a few people richer that own the damn things. Like Mr. Burns :)
I'm completely FOR all newer reactor designs that were made to be safe above all else. AFAIK, thorium reactor designs are the only ones that fail gracefully. Those reactors should be cheaper and safer to operate, not to mention build.
Additionally, I'm ALL FOR the government making multiple thorium reactors in each state....... and then giving the power to the people literally. Power is free from the government, paid for by your taxes :) Charge for anything over normal usage, but otherwise, citizens won't be freezing because some hellbound executive cocksucker decided to lay people off before Christmas and now they can't afford heat in the winter.
Ubiquitous safe and cheap power in the U.S could help get our economy back into shape, and not having to deal with frozen or cooked citizens is a good thing. Heat waves kill the old and the poor, and quite often, the old are poor.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:24PM
(Score: 2) by arslan on Wednesday November 22 2017, @03:18AM (1 child)
I'm pro-nuclear, but you seem to fall into the same trap to the person you're replying to. Nuclear is not mutually exclusive to wind and solar - Note, I inferred this by your statement "Nuclear is the only true viable solution".
No it is not, but it shouldn't be avoided either. Solar can be viable too if we pour enough research into it. If we can develop better solar PVs with higher efficiency they can become even more viable. Both nuclear and solar has the added benefit of being tech we can use for space faring as well. I don't follow wind, so can't comment on that.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:29AM
My statement was in error. I prefer a baseline of Solar and Wind with some sort of stored energy (hydrogen, gravity cells, future battery, diesel) to handle spikes.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @05:36PM (2 children)
The group abuses the trust that people have/had in science to achieve leftist goals.
They claim to represent scientists. Well, they don't. For example, my father is a scientist, PhD and all. He's an atheist and an early baby boomer too, so you could wrongly expect him to agree with this stuff. Nope.
Back in the 1960s, he was writing about how we should build more nuclear weapons and fight harder in Vietnam. He wanted Vietnam nuked. More recently, he was active in Tea Party stuff. He owns 15 to 20 guns. He thinks climate change is mostly nonsense. He hates abortion. He loves nuclear power. He hates illegal aliens and people who live here without fully switching to English.
Don't assume scientists are all cut from the same cloth. This group does not represent them.
(Score: 0, Troll) by jmorris on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:02PM
You do not understand. Your father is not a scientist because the word's definition now includes a political alignment. Blacks who stray from the reservation aren't "authentic blacks", women who aren't feminists aren't "women" and so on. You must always specify a language now. If unspecified it is assumed to be NewSpeak and not English so none of the words mean what English speakers assume they do.
Translation guide
English NewSpeak
woman cis-female
feminist woman
black if (angry) African-American else Uncle Tom
scientist bad person
activist (in lab coat) scientist
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:35PM
Have you considered a long-term care facility? Whatever you do, do not let your father go to Vegas, or to Church, for that matter.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday November 21 2017, @05:21PM (9 children)
It might be in bad taste to quote myself [soylentnews.org], but:
The Union of Concerned Scientists is a Russian shill, it's all part of a conspiracy against capitalism. No need to even consider the evidence.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:09PM (8 children)
"Climate Change" nowadays means "you must admit millions of filthy savage CIA-trained refugees from the Middle-East and North Africa to conquer your society."
Thanks, but no thanks. Let's go back to saving the gay whales, shall we?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by meustrus on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:37PM
Not sure where exactly you're coming from there. Although the US military does foresee climate change as a major threat multiplier [military.com] and is taking steps to prepare for the resulting problems [columbia.edu], including increased numbers of climate refugees [independent.co.uk] (report [cna.org]).
Disbelieving climate science won't make those "savage" refugees go away.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:59PM (6 children)
Hey, dipfuck, millions of those "savages" live in places that are going to suffer most from climate change. If you think there's a lot of them now, wait until Bangladesh ends up 2/3 underwater.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:54PM (3 children)
Well, Russia is ^ that-a-way. They have plenty of free land and I hear Siberia is pretty resistant to global warming.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday November 21 2017, @11:14PM (2 children)
Siberia, er...this would be the place where the ground is literally exploding due to warming causing massive methane bubbles to burst under the permafrost, no? Doesn't sound resistant to climate change at all. Sounds, actually, like an early warning system of sorts.
Oh well, no one reads your comments for insight or facts.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @03:15PM (1 child)
there are places where huge rocks have fallen on the resident's heads. other places where the rain won't fall. other places where to much rain falls. lots of places where the wind flattens everything. Siberia? the ground blows up now and then. maybe you prefer genuine earthquakes? move to California. are volcanoes preferable?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday November 23 2017, @05:49PM
Yeah, just hold still long enough for me to tie you up and drop you into one of them...Lady Pele will eat well tonight.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @03:09PM (1 child)
What you bitching about? Eth said he wanted to save you. "Let's go back to saving the gay whales, shall we?" Or, is it alright that we kill all you fat lesbians, and render you down for lard?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday November 23 2017, @05:57PM
Since when is 165 lb at 6' fat? You're probably twice my weight and half a foot shorter, ya basement-crawling incel autist. Go back to snaffling Hot Pockets and let the grown-ups talk amongst themselves.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @05:29PM (1 child)
It might also help to remove all of the software engineers and, PhD obstetricians, et al from the list of "scientists" I'm supposed to believe have relevant credentials.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday November 21 2017, @06:46PM
Or just reject the implied premise that scientific truths are determined by consensus, i.e. by a vote. One fact, or the lack of them, outweighs a thousand "button sorters and bottle washers."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @04:55PM (4 children)
20 minutes+ from TFA publishing on and khallow still missing?
Is he all right? (no, scratch that, he's never all right, let's try again)
Is he still able?
(yes, I see jmorris is present)
(Score: 3, Funny) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:15PM (3 children)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by aristarchus on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:28PM (2 children)
These will be "oblivious rebuttal" points, I take it?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:33PM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:08PM
Heh...if you don't pay your dealer you might end up with another kind of "lead supplement" entirely :D
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by crafoo on Tuesday November 21 2017, @05:08PM (1 child)
I read it. It says we need to maintain and preserve what we have, use less polluting energy sources, and control the human population. I think they say something like come to a scientific determination of a reasonable human population and enact policies to enforce it. Also, transition to a plant-based diet. I think this bit was funny and ridiculous considering if we limited human population we could eat pretty much whatever we wanted. Just adjust the cap accordingly.
So,
nuclear power
wildlife preserves
sterilize 90% of the population
They said provide education and family planning. That's fantastically out of touch with reality. We have soft-invasions taking place right now in Europe where the invaders' strategy is relocated and out-reproduce.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @06:35PM
> if we limited human population we could eat pretty much whatever we wanted
And if we ate humans, we wouldn't need to limit the population :)
Seriously tho, a reduction in population will cause a loss of profits so that's out.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @05:20PM (1 child)
The document includes this whopper: "We must ensure sexual equality, and guarantee women control over their own reproductive decisions."
So, stop the spread of Islam? Maybe start walking it back toward a goal of zero Muslims?
Same goes for Orthodox Jews and Mormons maybe?
Are they suggesting there is scientific justification for... a solution?
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Tuesday November 21 2017, @05:48PM
If their goal is a population decline then Jews, Mormons, and Christians are doing just fine on their own.
Population for Mormons
1996 # Mormons: ~14,800,000
2017 # Mormons: ~15,900,000
So about 7% increase over and about .7%/year
Population for Jewish peoples
Current population is 14.4 - 17.5 million
Wiki says since 2005 the population growth is .76%/year
Population for Christians
Christianity is at 2,184,060,000 estimated to be 2.9 billion by 2050. So 15% over 33 years for .45%/year
Looks like Christianity is pretty stable except for Catholics (less people becoming Catholics who currently are not Christians) and less people becoming orthodox (both Christians switching and new followers).
Population for Muslims
As of 2015 there were 1.7 billion
The same study that did the christian growth number for 2050 puts Islam at a growth rate of 1.8%/year.
So if the goal is to cut population growth it would seem that their intention is for Islam to fall by 1% to be in line with Mormons and Jews. At current trends Muslims are estimated to catch up to Christians by 2050. If we are talking final solutions here you would cull a ton of Christians and cap population growth for Islam.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 4, Insightful) by curunir_wolf on Tuesday November 21 2017, @05:20PM (19 children)
I trust these guys when they start suggesting changes that would affect their own lifestyles instead of just everyone elses'
Commercial air travel, for instance, uses a LOT of fossil fuel, and contributes significantly to green house gases. But these guys are always jetting around for conferences and meetings, so they won't talk about that.
Agriculture and animal husbandry really need an overhaul to improve the environmental impacts. But these guys, probably many already vegans, just want to talk about plant-based diets, which require food shipped around by truck and huge commercial farms to grow. But, you know, these guys all live in large, gentrified city centers where ALL the food is shipped in (and they can buy it from Trader Joe's), so don't want any sustainable local agriculture around. It's always somebody else that needs to change their diet, not these self-important blow-hards.
Regenerative agriculture and the wide range of land management methodologies associated with it have the potential to create multiple win-win-win solutions. In addition to offering a timely response to the spectre of run-away climate change, these techniques help to restore soils, revitalize rural communities, build food, water and energy sovereignty, and support the process of re-localizing production and consumption — thereby building systemic resilience as the basis of thriving regenerative cultures.
But screw those rural folks, right? We just need corporations to grow our vegan crap that most people can't afford.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Kilo110 on Tuesday November 21 2017, @05:42PM (12 children)
1- I agree that air travel is very polluting. And academics certainly go to conferences occasionally. Whether or not they go more often than non-academics is questionable. I'd argue that big business types travel by air significantly more often than academics ever could. Academics don't have the funding to go all the time even though they may want to.
2- Your whole vegan/city rant is just plain wrong. Carbon footprint of vegetables is much less than meats. No question about it. Also while the food does need to be trucked into a city, It's a lot more carbon friendly than everyone taking their individual cars and driving to and from the grocery store. In cities, people walk to grocery stores and walk back to their homes. No one drives.
You seem to have a lot of misconceptions (and outright contempt) for academics and vegans. There are definitely valid criticisms against both of those camps. However, your post contained none of those.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @05:50PM (6 children)
It's not so obvious.
Animals can graze on hilly and rocky land that is unsuited to modern farm equipment. Without animals, we would be wasting land. Good farmland tends to get paved over because it is flat and has nice weather.
(Score: 2) by Kilo110 on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:25PM (5 children)
That may or may not be so. I don't know either way. But the question is carbon footprint, not efficient use of land.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:47PM (4 children)
Only if you buy into the religion. Efficient use of land is otherwise quite relevant to carbon footprint.
Sounds like a good opportunity to educate yourself on the matter. What is the US state of Montana, for example, going to grow on infertile scrub land and prairie aside from herd animals like cows?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @10:28AM
Snails
(Score: 2) by CoolHand on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:28PM (2 children)
Most (and more and more) livestock are being produced by CAFO's, not grazing on rocky terrain and infertile scrub land. Those lands can not keep up with meat demand. THAT is why we need to go plant-based (or at least reduce meat consumption, either per-capita, or reducing population). CAFO's are horrible for the environment, for the animals, and for human health. On the last point, not only are they horrible from cholesterol, but they also pump the animals with antibiotics as that is the only way to keep them healthy. That, in turn, is contributing more than anything to the resistance problem with antibiotics.
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
(Score: 3, Informative) by Taibhsear on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:24PM (1 child)
So fight against that instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Also they don't use antibiotics prophylactically to keep them healthy. They do it because it makes them get fatter faster. I do agree that needs to be stopped.
(Score: 2) by CoolHand on Monday November 27 2017, @02:33PM
You sure about that? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3234384/ [nih.gov]
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @05:50PM
You entire post was unnecessary, did you not read their SIG ;)?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @06:41PM (1 child)
I take it you've never been to LA, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, Denver, Dallas, Houston, or really any other American city aside from NYC and a few select others...
(Score: 2) by Kilo110 on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:22PM
Sure, but even then, the density of various shopping opportunities means less travel needed. Furthermore you'll find mass transit options that wouldn't be possible in the suburbs or rural areas.
Generally speaking, the closer people are, the more efficient services can be.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @06:20AM
"Carbon footprint of vegetables is much less than meats."
Oh man, this one is so wrongheaded it hurts.
Right up front, you're faced with an agronomic problem; to feed humanity you need a certain level of amino acid intake. Some amino acids usually come from meat, while others are abundant in plant sources. Now your well-educated vegans will talk about how soy and quinoa are complete amino acid sources, and they're right, but the skeleton in the closet is that you can't grow enough for the world.
In fact, even if you converted all the land on the planet's surface to row crop farming, you couldn't grow enough of the right kinds of crops to produce enough of the right kinds of amino acids to feed the world. Not even with lavish doses of petrochemically sourced plant nutrients. Pity about all those endangered animals you'll be slaughtering in the process, but oh well ...
And that was just the fun side of the calculation. If you then add in the reality that people want to reduce carbon footprints, all those petrochemical nutrients are off the table, or vastly reduced. What do you use to enrich your soil? Well, it would have been manure of some sort, but if we're not farming animals, that's off the table as well.
If you actually aren't into genocide by starvation (and I'm hoping you sincerely aren't into genocide at all) then meat is still on the menu.
Oh, sure, you could grow some of your complete meat sources for the rich folks who want to show off. Vegetarianism is pretty much a luxury available to picky eaters. But us poor folks? Steak's what's for dinner. Or turkey. Whatever staves off conditions like pellagra.
Now some other people have already pointed out that not all agricultural land is equal, and that places such as Wyoming are high enough that the partial vapour pressure of carbon dioxide is a serious factor limiting the growth of plants at that altitude (not to mention the punishing climate) and that water supplies are also an issue, and so on and so forth, but I'm hoping that your basic distaste for genocide is what will be the determining factor here.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:57PM
It's irrelevant how people get to the grocery store and back. Someone in Boston walking to Trader Joe's in January for some fresh, organic tomatoes and Basmati rice isn't going to get locally sourced food. These guys are advocating this kind of mono agriculture, which is very unsustainable, and have those items shipped from thousands of miles away. Winter means you're eating canned goods and, yes, sustainable herds of grazing animals and fish, source from the local area. You travel (slowly, because air travel won't last after we run out of oil) to another clime and you'll be eating different stuff.
That's the myopic attitude I see from these guys. They think their own lifestyle can go on forever and it's everybody else that has to change.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 4, Informative) by julian on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:06PM (5 children)
This again?
Look, participating in a flawed system doesn't mean you're not allowed to criticize it. Eventually we'll have cleaner forms of air travel, but at the moment scientists and politicians need to get around the globe to do their jobs, which includes working to address climate change. There's nothing hypocritical about this.
You're basically this very smart man [pics.me.me] in the well.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:51PM (4 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @12:05AM (1 child)
Do you have any studies indicating that your assertions about scientists' tendencies are founded on fact, and not merely broad generalisations based on an imagined worse-case scenario?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:04AM
It's also worth noting that this isn't just restricted to scientists claiming doom from fossil fuel sources while blissfully using those resources, but a variety of policy makers, NGOs, and business leaders also playing the same game.
(Score: 2) by julian on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:46AM (1 child)
I believe you would then complain about electricity consumption, because your real problem is that some economically-maximizing processes are harmful to humans, which goes against your fundamental ethical primitives and you resent people who point that out.
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Wednesday November 22 2017, @06:05AM
And I think you'd be eating babies at that point. With radishes.
Maybe straw men aren't the best way to approach this discussion?
As to said "economically-maximizing processes", what are they and what is being maximized? The concept is undefined as you wrote it above.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @06:57PM (42 children)
But here's how it's ordered in the new letter [oregonstate.edu]:
Ozone depletion is considered more or less solved with CFC production way down from the 1980s so it got dropped from the list. So climate change has moved from second to last place in the list to first place in the journalist's list even though it hasn't gotten much worse in the meantime (as the updated letter indicates, no less!) - unlike biodiversity destruction in the developing world, ocean dead zones, and human population growth (getting better, but still increasing at almost linear rate over past 25 years).
Once again, climate change is elevated to a profile unworthy of its actual risk to us and the environment.
And the letter authors show much of the usual economic cluelessness in this area with a simultaneous demand for reduction in consumption, notably the conservation and recycling of materials which they consider important to alleviating poverty, combined with demands for reduced wealth inequality, and social and economic improvement. It doesn't make sense, for example, to waste very scarce resources, like human time, to preserve very plentiful resources like glass or paper (to give a common nonsensical trade off of many recycling programs).
They consider wealth inequality to be of importance. It is such a dubious measure, that I don't see a rational point to it. Most of humanity doesn't even try to accumulate wealth, the richest societies have lots of people who nominally have negative wealth (more debt than assets) to the extent that a person with no assets or debts is wealthier than the cumulative wealth of the poorest 30% of the world (which indicates that wealth measures are missing a really important piece - the future net earning potential of a person), and of the richest, their wealth is based on dubious valuations from illiquid markets. But it's real convenient to claim as a problem since it isn't likely to ever get much better in the long term due to the huge disparities in desire for and competence in growing wealth.
In summary, there are legitimate problems mentioned, but we see the usual myopia that is common to this subject with only slight acknowledgement of what gets done right and why, and an inordinate amount of attention paid to climate change, wealth inequality, and other popular bugbears.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:04PM (3 children)
it's only myopia if you can't see it all comes down to how world-wide capitalism has fucked up the planet through bombing and genocide.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:26PM (2 children)
That's the myopia right there. First, there isn't that much bombing and genocides. I believe capitalism has played a significant role what has made the world a more peaceful place since the end of the Second World War.
Second, while I grant that some bombing is due to capitalism-oriented forces, who's doing these genocides again? The last big one was in Rwanda almost 20 years ago. It involved a larger, more powerful tribe (Hutu) killing a weaker one (Tutsi). No capitalism required. Syria is the current leader in genocide with ISIS in particular doing in various ethnic groups in Syria and Iraq. That wasn't due to capitalism either.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:52PM (1 child)
They just lost their last city. Stragglers may still exist.
You don't hear about it because the media doesn't want to make Trump look good. ISIS grew rapidly under Obama, then got wiped out by just one year of Trump. The whole story has been buried, despite being kind of major. ISIS was big news... and now it's gone.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:21PM
Even if it does end, there's considerable potential for a new group to fill the niche. The dynamics that created ISIS still exist.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by aristarchus on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:45PM (37 children)
Ah! Klassic khallow! is this an oblivious rebuttal, or, just, like, your opinion, man? https://www.awesomegifs.com/wp-content/uploads/thats-just-like-your-opinion-man.gif [awesomegifs.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:00PM (36 children)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:34PM (27 children)
Rebutting your rebuttals:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com.au/nature/see-how-pacific-islanders-are-living-with-climate-change.aspx [nationalgeographic.com.au]
https://www.skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming.htm [skepticalscience.com]
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/08/hurricane-harvey-climate-change-global-warming-weather/ [nationalgeographic.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:06PM (19 children)
The second link is to a story that notes that there is no correlation so far between global warming and tropical cyclones, and then cherry picks a region which has an increase in frequency of storms over the past few decades.
And the third story is about the feeling that hurricanes probably have been made worse to some unknown degree by global warming with bonus handwaving by Kevin Trenberth and a scientist with the traditional untested computer models of huricane strength derived from more untested computer models of climate change.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:56PM (18 children)
Still have to power of an example as to what may happen to other latter.
This means you cannot claim now there's no effect whatsoever, you'll need at least to retreat into the effects are insignificant so far
Feel free to contribute to the "peer-review" process on the site. Until then, you words vs their words, I feel they have more credibility than you - especially since you didn't contribute anything but your opinion of "their content is just an opinion".
Be as it may, it's a feeling of a respected institution in American cultural space.
Again, putting it into the balance with the feeling** of your yet-to-be-named mothership [soylentnews.org]... I'd rather feel like National Geographic
(grin)
---
** 'cause I didn't see from your side anything that would qualify as "more than a feeling"; even more, what I heard is far lower than
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @11:13PM (17 children)
Keep in mind my original statement:
Moving on:
Not going to waste my time. Imagine if I could insert my rebuttals into your replies on SN directly (and otherwise edit your posts as I see fit), but you couldn't do the same to me. That's the games played with "peer-review" on that site.
So what? You are evaluating them on a non-scientific basis. Evidence should be what matters, not the credibility of their cherry picked evidence.
Again so what? I'd rather have the soothing feel of evidence against my warty skin.
Not seeing the reason to care about your feelz.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday November 21 2017, @11:34PM (16 children)
Since your initial claim** is not sustained by anything that was presented here (in spite of your duty to do so), so I'll consider as your "personal feeling".
To which feeling I reciprocated.
Shared feeling.
And because it was you that that made the first claim**, I'd expect to be you to present the evidence first.
Until then, I'm free to wonder in the hypotheses or argument space as... well... as it pleases me.
---
** the "Once again, climate change is elevated to a profile unworthy of its actual risk to us and the environment." claim. A claim supported by...?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 22 2017, @12:53AM (15 children)
Of course. I present the lack of evidence as evidence. After all, if there really was undeniable evidence for near future substantial harm from global warming, they would have presented that and we wouldn't be playing these games. Your move.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:30AM (14 children)
At the very best "the lack of evidence shall not be accepted as a proof for the lack" is applicable.
"There's no teapot orbiting Sun" is as unfalsifiable as its negated. Even in the context of accepting this as the premise
Of course, the things change for people actually doing research - their can propose and study and improve models.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 22 2017, @02:01AM (13 children)
You're not even trying. I'm not "proving" that. It is merely supporting evidence for my position. We have extraordinary resources thrown at climate change study. Yet they can't come up with smoking gun evidence of the supposed high priority risk of global warming.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday November 22 2017, @02:15AM (12 children)
As you aren't proving anything, what's the "I'm sciency you're not" position?
You are presenting assertion, I'm free to ignore them.
I'm presenting assertions you are free to ignore them.
Case closed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 22 2017, @02:28AM (11 children)
You just made it. Before, you at least tried to make an argument. Now, it's just assertions? No scientific content. That wastes both our time and I put some value on my time.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday November 22 2017, @06:18AM (1 child)
The amount of it you waste in pointless bad faith arguing here belies the claim, khallow. Once again you have met up with someone with logic and facts on their side, and you have lost. And yet you persist. Are you a Confederate, khallow? That what was wrong with those boys, they just didn't know when they was whooped.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @07:31AM
Translation: mothership doesn't pay for posts revealing that everything khallow spews on S/N are assertions (bullshit in vulgar terms). It requires a modicum of sophistication, just enough to ring as a proper argument.
Repetition, such as "cherry pick" accusations, or character assassination may likely carry a bonus - I can't see any other reason khallow doesn't get bored with them. Or perhaps those are his latest lines of retreat.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday November 22 2017, @07:53AM (8 children)
I made my arguments and you rejected them - it's clear that you won't be convinced by a sum of articles that are peer-reviewed. Nor are you willing to peer-review them and possible contribute with corrections or alternatives. A thing is also crystal-clear: you assert you know better than them.
Since I admit I cannot be better than them (be it only because of my time/commitments constraints), it follows that I won't be able to make you accept their findings/statistics/models.
So I asked you to present your arguments for 'we have nothing that we know and should scare us, ergo there's evidence (but not proof) we have nothing at all to be scared about'. Which I said that, in the best case, it's an argument that leads nowhere, as it defines the issue as undecidable by itself alone.
Nothing else coming from you, let's draw the line and make the sum(mary):
- I presented my examples and arguments, and wasn't willing to defend them, thus my arguments are no better than assertions;
- you presented your statement and chose a line of argumentation which is not able to resolve the issue - your statement is no better than an assertion.
And that's all there is. As anticlimactic as it may be, staying on the same lines is not going to add anything different... so why your surprise? You think my time is not valuable to me or what?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 22 2017, @03:49PM (7 children)
And what is wrong with that? These examples show the variety of problems that come with the research, such as the too common combination of observation and confirmation bias where one assumes that because one sees something recorded for the first time, that it happened for the first time. The first example was a case of that, assuming that the problems of living on small islands are noticeably affected by the modest sea rise to date, mostly because no one had scientifically recorded the rigors of living on such islands in the past.
There's also the fact that sea level has been rising for the past 20k or so years. The rate has slowed dramatically over the past 8k years, but it's still consistently around half a meter [wikipedia.org] per 1000 years, which over the time frames of climate change is still a significant amount of sea level rise (about a third of the total amount of sea level rise).
The second article demonstrated the dangers of cherry picking data.
And the last article demonstrated the common tactic of extrapolating estimates of harm via computer models from untested computer models of climate. It has some moderate usefulness, but we see this way too frequently. In particular, it is absurd to base global social and economic policy on such things. There are immense sums being devoted to climatology, they can do better than this.
Sure, it's too bad that you feel the outcome was wrong, but this is always going to be the problem with poor research, which is what is flooding climatology over the past few decades.
No, that is incorrect. The issue is quite decidable. My view here is that one should provide evidence of the threat, then we can respond to it. That just hasn't been done to an adequate level with global warming. Not just by many people like you who are firmly convinced of the harm, but can't point to anything concrete, but also the various bodies who are responsible for presenting such information.
For example, the IPCC has consistently exaggerated the extent and risks of global warming. For their latest example [soylentnews.org], they backtrack on their estimates of the most important parameter in climatology the long term temperature sensitivity of a doubling of CO2 while simultaneous deciding, without supporting evidence, that a very low threshold, a temperature increase of 1.5 C since the beginning of the Industrial Age, is the absolute maximum of warming we should tolerate. Why not tolerate 4 C of increase (an example I consider)? That buys up to two centuries of action at current rates of temperature increase under the temperature sensitivities of the new research, which is at the very bottom of the new estimates of temperature sensitivity given by the IPCC.
That brings up the next problem. Projected climate change is way out of joint with existing climate change, with past models of climate change already consistently diverging [soylentnews.org] substantially to the warm side from real world observations (note in particular my later observation that the "random internal variability" excuse used in the story only appears in the future of these models, not the past, when statistically, it should appear in both). Why should I expect that climate will correct to fit the climate models rather than the present levels of divergence increasing in the future?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday November 22 2017, @07:58PM (5 children)
Nothing wrong with that. My summary made no value judgement on what happened, just the explanation about my reaction.
Non decidable in the logical sense. By itself, your argument didn't offer any support for determining the truth value of your statement.
Other arguments/data/approaches need to be added.
And all your arguments in your new post lead into the same: we don't know how climate change is going to affect us. There's no clear demonstration of a necessity on both extremes of the reaction (we can afford to do nothing versus we must do everything to scrub all the CO2 in the atmosfere) or at any level of reaction in between.
For the sake of argumentation, if I am to take this as correct, where does it lead? Well, the answer is: the entire range of possible reactions are equally justifiable on available data, the only question is willingness and affordability of "experimenting" further within this "lab" we call Earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 23 2017, @03:22AM (4 children)
And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 23 2017, @08:33AM (3 children)
Rather than grinding, let's go meta.
It's clear we (the humanity) are playing a game with incomplete info: a highly chaotic system, with a large uber of dimensions involved, too little predictive power in the models, too little information about the present, too little and unreliable info of the past. Even worse, there isn't any chance to run multiple experiment in a controlled ... ummm... environment (the experimental side is reduced to observational).
The worst, we don't even know the stake of the game, but we can accept that the entire range from benign to human species wipeout is possible.
So, what support for decisions do you see under the circumstances?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:37AM (2 children)
I disagree. We know the stakes haven't been much through to the present (aside from a massive consumption of public funds on a variety of impractical projects and spending) and that various parties which are supposed to be unbiased, like climate researchers or government regulators, have been selling climate change very hard despite the lack of evidence for the harm that climate change is supposed to cause.
Meanwhile the people predicting wipeout from global warming are loons who can't be bothered to collect a shred of evidence to back their noise.
Argument from ignorance is just another fallacy.
Wait and see is what I see happening. While there are a few true believers elsewhere, catastrophic AGW really is a developed world ideology. Ultimately, the developing world (which may well dominate the global economy in the latter half of the 21st century) is going along with the feelgood only because someone else pays for it.
My prediction is that we'll find that the IPCC and various publicly funded research efforts have exaggerated both the degree and the harm of global warming when climate models continue to diverge from reality and people can address what harm there is by moving uphill once every 50 years or so or changing up the crops grown in farms every so often.
Finally, I tire of the people who are deeply cynical about economic matters, yet become total rubes when it comes to environmental matters. Money and power are still involved. The problems spurred by money and power still happen. The only thing that has changed is that they like the story better.
Given the many problems with climate research of the present, I see no reason for urgent action. Instead, it is time to wait. If matters really are as dire as claimed, we will see the results in the next few decades. If they aren't, which is what I expect, we will see that as well.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 23 2017, @11:02AM (1 child)
Me too. With your arguments.
You mean, besides those Pacific islanders I mentioned, right?
And you can't honestly say '100% it's a fluke, the things are going to stop there'.
I admit I cannot say for sure it will go much worse, but based on what I know I estimate the chances to go much worse as far from trivial.
Remember that I asked you about the support for the decision?
What I heard from you was 'here's my suggestion for decision and in support of it I say that the one thinking it can get to the worst are loonies'.
Doesn't sounds a rational support for decision.
I'll let aside your disregard for fate of people that don't have where to move and just say I'm afraid that won't be that simple.
Qualitative argument: the Earth is a chaotic system, far from a quasi-static equilibrium. It doesn't warn and cool in a uniform fashion, a little bit all over the place and gradual - it does go through time periods and geo area in which the energy just happens to concentrate and is release suddenly - e.g. hurricane/typhoon seasons and affected areas. With more energy into the atmosphere, the prediction of more frequent and higher amplitude of such events sound reasonable to my ear - yes, based on my education (graduate in Physics) I do buy this argument.
Heh, that's me. Sorry about that, but I'm old enough to offer you too slim chances that I'll ever change - took me more than half a century to get here and I'm feeling comfortable in my economic-cynical skin. If it's of any consolation to you, I have little to financially win or lose being environmental/sustainability biased, not a cent from your pocket enters mine.
On my side, I'm quite amused (now, at this age, we aren;t talking about 10-15 years ago)... where was I?... ah, yes, quite amused of those how believe economy is something vital to do at peak efficiency and with the purpose of accumulating... what... money?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 23 2017, @04:47PM
Them too. How much has global warming made their situation worse? And why should we harm the well being of seven billion people (climate change mitigation is notoriously harmful such as corn ethanol subsidies in the US increasing the cost of food globally, doubling of electricity costs in Germany and Denmark, and multiple market failures in carbon emission markets in Europe), just because a few people on some islands have somewhat more severe problems of the sort they would have anyway?
Qualitative argument for what? Particularly given that the higher frequency and "amplitude" hasn't been observed except by cherry picking regions?
A href="https://soylentnews.org/~khallow/journal/2754">My view on that. One of the key pieces of evidence I discuss is the observation that most of humanity has substantial increased income adjusted for inflation (as in a strong indication via deciles that two thirds of human has over the two decades ending in 2008, seen at least a 30% increase in their income) and the worst sort of poverty has declined in absolute value by a factor of three (from about two thirds of humanity in 1970 to one tenth today). That's due purely to the global economy. So one of the many side effects of the fossil fuel-based economy is that we're accumulating people who aren't starving and are better off. This is the best improvement in the human condition ever.
Well, the short-sighted obsession with climate change threatens that. The solutions harm the golden goose while making insignificant progress towards mitigation goals. And by making more people poorer globally, mitigation strategies may even in the long run make the problem worse just because poorer people have higher fertility rates. What's the point of creating long term population, economic, and environmental problems just to protect people who can simply move somewhere else (perhaps even just a few dozen yards somewhere else) over the course of their lives?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:00PM
And my apologies, I'm running out of my spare time budget for now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by gottabeme on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:32AM (6 children)
Ok, I can't let this slide. You're citing John Cook's web site as an authority on CAGW. I hope you are ignorant of the scandal in which he and his cohorts unethically cooked (ha) data and decided in advance what the conclusion of their paper would be. Because if you know about his complete lack of integrity and still cite him, you thereby destroy your own integrity. Whereas, if you are merely ignorant, you merely demonstrate that you haven't bothered to do sufficient research, yet cling stubbornly to your beliefs and defend them with caustic zeal.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday November 22 2017, @02:01AM (5 children)
Oh, do enlighten me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 23 2017, @08:06PM
(Score: 2) by gottabeme on Monday November 27 2017, @12:00PM (3 children)
Oh, do your own homework.
If you care so much about the world, you should care enough to do the most basic search on Google for the works you cite. If you're unwilling to do that, then you are willfully ignorant and not serious at all. Ironically, this is one of the chief memes used by alarmists, that their opponents are merely ignorant, or willfully so. Amazing how often the opposite is the case.
Or you can just read khallow's comment, in which he does the work for you.
But maybe you already know about it and are just pushing lies to advance your agenda. Not big surprise, if so.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday November 28 2017, @01:30AM (2 children)
I'm willing to do my homework, not willing to do yours.
Your claim, your duty to support it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by gottabeme on Wednesday November 29 2017, @03:19AM (1 child)
False. You cited Cook's article, so it's your job to verify its veracity. If you neglect to do so, you are guilty of willful ignorance. Now that you have been informed of its falsity, you are additionally guilty of spreading false information.
We're not even talking about reading Cook's article--we're talking about doing a Google search!
But you're obviously fine with lying. The ends justify the means, right? You'd cite a thousand Cooks if you could.
Filthy liar.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29 2017, @06:06AM
After spewing all this shit, be civilized and use that toilet paper to wipe you mouth, will you?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Tuesday November 21 2017, @11:05PM (7 children)
Yes, it is very hard to test models on the future, since the future does not exist and so provides no data. What you are saying makes no sense, khallow. Are you just being cranky again? Once the future collapses into the present, and solidifies into the past, we do have data that can confirm what the model projected for the once future past. Is your difficulty temporal, or ideological?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday November 21 2017, @11:19PM
Both: ideological insanity due to temporal lobe dysfunction :D
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:00AM (5 children)
The obvious rebuttal is that we can run the clock and merely wait for a while. Then the nonexistent future becomes a well defined past that we can observe yet not a well defined past that a climate model can anticipate a priori without having the desired explicative power.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday November 22 2017, @06:22AM (4 children)
I love it when you talk dirty, khallow, but could you explain exactly what you were trying to say in this sentence? You know well that predictive power and explicative power are quite separate and potentially at odds. And I do not think you know what "a priori" actually means. Still got that dictionary you keep bragging about?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 22 2017, @03:59PM (3 children)
Ok, predictive power then.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday November 23 2017, @08:20AM (2 children)
And of course you know, further, my dear scientific khallow, that while correlation does grant probability and predictive power (though, really, no one knows why other than the statistical correlation) it does not give any explicatory, or expanatory force. So what are you saying, khallow? Fool me once, and that is chance, but fool me twice, and that is science in action. I think it is best to turn around, and ask, who is being the fool here? The Data, or the Climate Denier?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 23 2017, @08:49AM (1 child)
Except when it does. No point to this, aristarchus.
I don't agree that you are thinking. "The Data" and "the Climate Denier" are ill-defined (and by the usual meaning, "data" can't have a property associated with sentience, foolishness, further indicating the ill-defined and ill-thought nature of these questions). At this point, neither are worth asking metaphorical questions over. One should show first that climate change is such a problem that it needs to be dealt with now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @03:19PM
watch it dude - he talks sweet to all his little boys as he prepares to penetrate them