Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 10-27-2018, 08:45 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
Being anti-nuclear because you think nuclear power plants might explode like big bombs is anti-science and also stupid.
But being anti-nuclear because you don't think there is an adequate safety margin, or that all failure modes aren't being considered, or because you think nuclear power companies are cutting corners are matters of engineering. That's a lot more debatable than the science at this point.
I think we should remove the profit motive and give plants more funding to make sure they are engineered correctly. Then I'd feel better about them.
Like I said, we aren't going to do anything about global warming. Both sides claim that there isn't enough evidence. And there never will be.

Regards,
Shodan
  #152  
Old 10-27-2018, 10:35 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Like I said, we aren't going to do anything about global warming. Both sides claim that there isn't enough evidence. And there never will be.

Regards,
Shodan
Usually this is related to things like extreme weather like hurricane numbers, the evidence is enough for items like ocean rise, ocean acidification, increase in heatwaves, hurricane and storm intensity increase.

It is a propaganda wonder to see contrarian sources make hay out of doubtful results of a warming world like a possible increase in the number of hurricanes; while telling their viewers or readers to dismiss the most certain results by implying or telling to their followers that ergo, all the other issues should be doubted the same.

While it is interesting for a guy with a background in social studies and history like me, it does not take away the reality that powerful interests do not give a hoot if we add even more possible harmful results to the nation and the world if we continue to treat the atmosphere as a sewer.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 10-27-2018 at 10:37 AM.
  #153  
Old 10-27-2018, 12:53 PM
ExTank's Avatar
ExTank is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Creve Coeur, MO
Posts: 6,811
How is history going to judge the environmentalists who fought "Going Nuclear" tooth-and-nail for decades on end?

When they fought going solar in the vast stretches of desert available to put in large solar farms, on the grounds that some insect, some reptile was going to be displaced by the installation?

How are they going to judge the 1% that stood on NIMBY wrt wind farms? The environmentalists who are now opposed to wind farms for environmental reasons (kills migrating birds)?
  #154  
Old 10-27-2018, 01:10 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Hey ExTank, your party currently controls every branch of the US government. If you guys want to "go nuclear", or install solar panels in the desert* nobody is stopping you. Why aren't you asking your representative about it? Note: If you live in Florida or North Carolina, maybe avoid using the terms "climate change" or "global warming" in your letter; the republican governments in those states have banned environmental officials from using those terms.

If you can't hear the snark in that, rest assured, it's there. This argument doesn't magically become less nonsensical just because your name isn't Shodan and/or you didn't read the thread. In reality, there is one party in congress who is possibly wrong on policy details but understands that there is a problem that needs solving, and there is one party in congress whose leaders have called the problem a hoax over and over again. The only fucking "NIMBY" when it comes to wind farms is a certain orange asshole who insisted that they ruined the view at his fucking golf course. There is no fucking comparison here.

And as usual, I have no idea whether this person is debating in good faith or not. Because that's never a fair assumption when talking about republicans and climate change. It just isn't.

*(This is easily one of the most bizarre complaints I've ever heard. Nobody is against putting up solar installations in the desert because of endangered species concerns. That's just straight-up not a thing and I have no idea where you're getting it from. In fact, there's a whole Wikipedia page on solar plants in the Mojave Desert. The problem is usually logistical - how do you reliably transport the energy from point A to point B; how do you build a solar farm in the desert; who's going to pay for it; how long will it take to build. Things like that.)

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 10-27-2018 at 01:13 PM.
  #155  
Old 10-27-2018, 01:58 PM
Ulfreida is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: pangolandia
Posts: 3,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidwithanR View Post
"Deniers" are not legitimately denying anything. They are simply lying, intentionally and maliciously. They don't believe their own bullshit.
Only true for a few (capitalist exploiter class for the most part). Most believe the right wing/exploiter class media machine.

I think the majority will be rightly judged as pathetic dupes, while those liars who deliberately do everything in their power to accrue wealth and power while perfectly aware they are burning the planet to death will be judged a little more harshly.

Last edited by Ulfreida; 10-27-2018 at 01:59 PM.
  #156  
Old 10-27-2018, 03:07 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Like I said, we aren't going to do anything about global warming. Both sides claim that there isn't enough evidence. And there never will be.

Regards,
Shodan
Both sidesism? Really? On the one hand, we have a party that insist that global warming is a hoax, and passes legislation to prevent it from even being discussed.

And the other side, we have people who want to be careful about how we deal with a technology that needs to be dealt with carefully.

You really consider those to be equivalent?

The right says that there is not enough evidence and never will be for global warming, and will never do anything about it.

The left says that we need to improve the designs to be safer, and that we can do that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ExTank View Post
How is history going to judge the environmentalists who fought "Going Nuclear" tooth-and-nail for decades on end?
As some of the environmentalists who fought nuclear tooth and nail brought much needed safety regulations to the nuclear industry, improving the safety of both the communities nearby and the people who worked in the plant, I would say relatively well.

History may not look as kindly upon those who decided that it wasn't worth continuing to do if it had to be done safely.
Quote:
When they fought going solar in the vast stretches of desert available to put in large solar farms, on the grounds that some insect, some reptile was going to be displaced by the installation?
Cite, please
Quote:
How are they going to judge the 1% that stood on NIMBY wrt wind farms? The environmentalists who are now opposed to wind farms for environmental reasons (kills migrating birds)?
By the 1%, I assume you mean the richest 1%, who do have quite the NIMBY on wind farms near their properties. They don't want those properties values to be lowered by being withing sight of a wind turbine.
  #157  
Old 10-27-2018, 03:53 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge
The IPCC has been promoting their view of global warming for 30 years. How's that been working out for ya? [...]

I'm suggesting that your side change their approach. Unless they like the results that they've achieved so far.
Well then, can you explain what you think would CONVINCE you and other science deniers to pay attention to the science on this issue?

When climate scientists, the IPCC and other science-aware people try to explain the relevant climate science issues to science deniers such as yourself, you respond by proposing scientifically absurd alternative explanations and/or saying it's some kind of political "scam".

When it's pointed out that professional opinion-influencers sponsored by powerful interests are taking advantage of people's ignorance, laziness and gullibility to promote anti-science views, and that the targets of this strategy are abdicating their civic responsibilities by buying into it, you merely pout about "name-calling".

So if you won't listen to facts and reason, and you won't listen to reproach and criticism, what WILL you listen to? Should we start ad campaigns claiming that learning the facts about climate change will make your penis bigger, or something? Do you want to be lied to, since you are evidently determined not to be persuaded by the truth?

doorhinge's science-denier bumper sticker: "I MADE UP MY MIND NOT TO LISTEN TO YOU SO IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT THAT I'M WRONG".

Last edited by Kimstu; 10-27-2018 at 03:54 PM.
  #158  
Old 10-27-2018, 11:26 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Like I said, we aren't going to do anything about global warming. Both sides claim that there isn't enough evidence. And there never will be.

Regards,
Shodan
What evidence does the left deny? Especially the left that supports nuclear power.
  #159  
Old 10-27-2018, 11:32 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExTank View Post

How are they going to judge the 1% that stood on NIMBY wrt wind farms? The environmentalists who are now opposed to wind farms for environmental reasons (kills migrating birds)?
Lots of environmentalists in California. Try driving through the Altamont pass sometime - tons of windmills. Also on the way to Vegas. It doesn't look like those environmentalists have a lot of power even here.
  #160  
Old 10-27-2018, 11:34 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
That is missing the point, and I have to notice that you have to ignore what even the nuclear guys are telling us about what is going on in the industry right now.

So, Nuclear is still a part of a complete breakfast way to deal with the CO2 and other greenhouse gases pollution. What I think it should be done is for all to take into account that we do have many nuclear powered ships and subs that are going around. And that leads me to think that the government should indeed declare an emergency regarding the climate and then get the military to develop and deploy next gen nuclear plants, mostly in the west on remote military installations. Just before that takes place, follow the French example to really fund science education in all schools, and educate people by funding also trips to the new nuclear plants in development.
It strikes me that if you ta carbon enough, it might make nuclear plants more economically feasible than they are today. Let's hear it for the carbon tax right wing nuclear fans.
  #161  
Old 10-28-2018, 03:06 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
It strikes me that if you ta carbon enough, it might make nuclear plants more economically feasible than they are today. Let's hear it for the carbon tax right wing nuclear fans.
This is actually an excellent point that isn't made often enough: the cost of emissions is not factored in to the cost of fossil fuels, so the market is prevented from working as it should, and the cost is instead borne by others, such as those suffering damage from extreme weather, sea level rise, droughts and floods, health effects, crop damage and pest infestations, and countless other ills. The political right wing is big on privatizing everything so they're fine with paying private firms to take their garbage away, but their automobile tailpipes and power plant smokestacks are totally open to the air, dumping absolutely free and with reckless abandon while costing the world trillions.
  #162  
Old 10-28-2018, 12:01 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
This is actually an excellent point that isn't made often enough: the cost of emissions is not factored in to the cost of fossil fuels, so the market is prevented from working as it should, and the cost is instead borne by others, such as those suffering damage from extreme weather, sea level rise, droughts and floods, health effects, crop damage and pest infestations, and countless other ills. The political right wing is big on privatizing everything so they're fine with paying private firms to take their garbage away, but their automobile tailpipes and power plant smokestacks are totally open to the air, dumping absolutely free and with reckless abandon while costing the world trillions.
That's one of the complaints that I have heard in the nuclear community. They are responsible for containing every bit of their waste, even things like Tritium and Xenon emissions need to be at undetectable levels. So, a nuclear plant ends up putting out far less radiation than a coal plant, which just spews all of its waste, including radioactive materials, into the air for free.

I don't know that loosening the restrictions on nuclear is the right play, but tightening them on coal plants would be. Require coal plants to have the same level of radioactive emissions as nuclear, and see how long they stay economically viable.

(Though I do support reducing restrictions on tritium release. It's expensive to try to contain all of it, and is really a non-issue as far as nuclear contamination is concerned. Xenon is a bit more complicated, but I think we can afford to look at a cost benefit analysis of that as well.)
  #163  
Old 10-30-2018, 08:48 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,502
A passel of young folk, we might be aware, have been pushing forward a class action lawsuit to force the government to mitigate climate change by moving away from fossil fuels. Naturally, the government is not in favor of this action proceeding, has petitioned SCotUS to stay the suit, which has been rejected in the past few days (allowing it to move through the lower courts, eventually to be argued before the 9, one should expect).

The language in DoJ's latest petition is troubling. On the 14th page of this pdf of the government's petition (page 4 of the text), one can read
On the merits, the district court concluded that Plaintiffs had stated a claim under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and a federal public trust doctrine. Id. at 1248-61. The court found in the Fifth Amendment’s protection against the deprivation of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” U.S. Const. amend. V, a previously unrecognized fundamental right to a “climate system capable of sustaining human life,” and the court determined that Plaintiffs had adequately alleged infringement of that fundamental right. … The government petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus to halt these deeply flawed proceedings. This Court stayed the litigation for seven-and-a-half months but ultimately denied the petition without prejudice.
This can be read as saying that our children/grandchildren do not have a fundamental right to a livable world.

How will history view us? There it is, right there.
  #164  
Old 10-30-2018, 10:05 PM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Well, working fine to show others that are reading this that you miss a lot, like post #91 and #103 so thanks.
You've been beating the MMCO2IE drum for 30 years. You're the one who wants to change the status quo. Your problem seems to be that you can not convince enough people to buy what your selling. I'm suggesting that, maybe, it's time to change your tactics, or methods. Doing the same thing over and over again, while failing to achieve your expected/demanded results, makes it seem as if you're stuck in a rut.
  #165  
Old 10-30-2018, 10:14 PM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
When climate scientists, the IPCC and other science-aware people try to explain the relevant climate science issues to science deniers such as yourself, you respond by proposing scientifically absurd alternative explanations and/or saying it's some kind of political "scam".

When it's pointed out that professional opinion-influencers sponsored by powerful interests are taking advantage of people's ignorance, laziness and gullibility to promote anti-science views, and that the targets of this strategy are abdicating their civic responsibilities by buying into it, you merely pout about "name-calling".


doorhinge's science-denier bumper sticker: "I MADE UP MY MIND NOT TO LISTEN TO YOU SO IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT THAT I'M WRONG".
(post shortened)

Bumper sticker? 1st, why would I put bumper stickers on my cars? 2nd, YOU have created a bumper sticker, and then attributed YOUR bumper sticker to me. How is that going to convince more voters to buy into your MMCO2IE belief.
  #166  
Old 10-31-2018, 02:45 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
You've been beating the MMCO2IE drum for 30 years. You're the one who wants to change the status quo. Your problem seems to be that you can not convince enough people to buy what your selling.
Why do I feel like I'm repeating myself? Ah, I know, because I am! This nonsense was all dealt with here. You ignored it. So here's your chance to demonstrate your open-mindedness by ignoring it again. But the facts remain that (a) the majority are convinced about anthropogenic climate change (here's yet another poll), especially outside the hyperpartisan US, and (b) physical reality is unaffected by what people believe, so it's a mystery why you've been harping on that for years now. What is also clear is that denialism is overwhelmingly associated with Republicans. Yet even among conservatives on this board, you're one of the last of the deniers here -- something you might want to reflect upon. Your idea that no one believes in AGW seems to involve a great deal of projection.

What I wanted to address here in terms of new information is this 30-year claim of yours. That isn't true, either. Here's a brief history.

30 years ago marked the founding of the IPCC, but the science then was nowhere near what the science is now. Science advances, believe it or not. The first IPCC assessment was two years later, in 1990, and it was estimated that it would be another decade before the signature of anthropogenic global warning could be declared unequivocal. But the evidence was already strong enough that the Kyoto Accord was signed in 1992.

The second IPCC assessment was published in 1996, and suggested, on the balance of evidence, a discernible human influence on global climate.

The third assessment in 2001 was the first one to publish the "hockey stick" graph because it was the first with access to the Mann et al. research (MBH98, MBH99), but by today's standards it was still pretty primitive. Nevertheless, it was enough to prompt 16 national science academies to issue a joint statement on climate change. There was now a serious call to action.

The fourth assessment was a monumental landmark effort published in 2007 and was, in my subjective estimation and recollection, when all hell broke loose. It declared, among many other well-supported scientific conclusions, that planetary warming was unequivocal, that there was greater than 90% probability that most of it was due to human causes, that frequencies and intensities of extreme weather events would continue to increase, that the effects would continue to increase for centuries even if greenhouse gases were stabilized, and that the effects would exceed our ability to adapt. In my recollection, this was when the propaganda machines of the oil and coal interests and industrialists really swung into action against the perceived threats to their vested interests, and denialism became a major political force on the right.

The fifth assessment was published in 2014 and echoed the fourth assessment conclusions with greater certainty, the dominance of the human influence now raised to near certainty (95-100% probability), greenhouse gas concentrations found to be unprecedented in at least 800,000 years, and dire warnings about the commitments to temperature rise trajectories and consequent impacts that were already established.

So in my estimation the serious battles between science and political partisanship really began in earnest only around 2007, little more than a decade ago. And with the capitulation of Exxon Mobil, historically one of the worst offenders in the dark-money propaganda game, which now acknowledges anthropogenic climate change as real and as a problem requiring mitigation, it appears that as the science gets more certain and the outlook more alarming, the political battle is being won except among the most extreme elements, which, sadly, are found among many American conservatives.

Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
Bumper sticker? 1st, why would I put bumper stickers on my cars? 2nd, YOU have created a bumper sticker, and then attributed YOUR bumper sticker to me.
True, but from what I've seen of your posts on this subject over the years, his/her hypothetical bumper sticker for you -- "I MADE UP MY MIND NOT TO LISTEN TO YOU SO IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT THAT I'M WRONG" -- accurately represents your views and actions. As just noted above, in fact. You willfully ignore evidence and then claim that the science is not persuasive enough.
  #167  
Old 10-31-2018, 03:08 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Just stop responding to him until he answers the question I posed in post 94. Until he answers that question engaging with his claims is pointless.
  #168  
Old 11-01-2018, 08:30 AM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,925

The Moderator Speaks


Leave the moderating to the mods, BPC. You don’t get to stifle debate by telling others what to respond to.
  #169  
Old 11-01-2018, 08:54 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
You've been beating the MMCO2IE drum for 30 years. You're the one who wants to change the status quo. Your problem seems to be that you can not convince enough people to buy what your selling. I'm suggesting that, maybe, it's time to change your tactics, or methods. Doing the same thing over and over again, while failing to achieve your expected/demanded results, makes it seem as if you're stuck in a rut.
Actually the posts that I pointed at showed that people are listening more to the science and to people that do follow the science like me.

As pointed out, thank you for showing all how one should dismiss your uninformed opinion once again.
  #170  
Old 11-01-2018, 09:37 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,256
One more thing:

Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
You've been beating the MMCO2IE drum for 30 years. You're the one who wants to change the status quo.
As a bonus to show the levels of failure that was included on that post, I have to point out that even on that you are wrong. I have been a member of this site for about 18 years, not 30; and got deep into this subject thanks to a "the stupid, it burns" point of a denier about 10 years ago regarding the "hockey stick" that has nowadays even more overwhelming support. Here one has to point out that any source that you rely on that has not corrected the gross and inaccurate information just on that item alone should be dismissed too.

Scientists figured out about the issue more than 100 years ago and only in the last 60 figured out that nature was not going to drive the changes in climate, but us.

https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm
  #171  
Old 11-01-2018, 11:21 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Leave the moderating to the mods, BPC. You don’t get to stifle debate by telling others what to respond to.
Well I can't just straight-up come out and say what I want to say here, and the mods clearly aren't dealing with the problem, so... What would you propose I do?
  #172  
Old 11-01-2018, 11:26 AM
Jasmine's Avatar
Jasmine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 2,258
For the utter fools that they actually are.
  #173  
Old 11-01-2018, 01:15 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Well I can't just straight-up come out and say what I want to say here, and the mods clearly aren't dealing with the problem, so... What would you propose I do?
You frame your post non-imperatively. “Why are people responding to this poster's raving bullshit? It is an exercise in utter futility that is crufting up the thread, rendering it barely readable. Make it stop, pleeease.” You know, something like that. Put a little art in it.
  #174  
Old 11-01-2018, 06:45 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Well I can't just straight-up come out and say what I want to say here, and the mods clearly aren't dealing with the problem, so... What would you propose I do?
I would suggest that you just stop reading the thread if you do not like the manner in which other posters participate.
You could report a broken rule if you believe a rule has been broken. If no Mod responds (in text or by action), you may come to the understanding that no rule has been broken.
Further discussion should take place in the proper forum, ATMB.
  #175  
Old 11-01-2018, 06:59 PM
WillFarnaby is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
One more thing:



As a bonus to show the levels of failure that was included on that post, I have to point out that even on that you are wrong. I have been a member of this site for about 18 years, not 30; and got deep into this subject thanks to a "the stupid, it burns" point of a denier about 10 years ago regarding the "hockey stick" that has nowadays even more overwhelming support. Here one has to point out that any source that you rely on that has not corrected the gross and inaccurate information just on that item alone should be dismissed too.

Scientists figured out about the issue more than 100 years ago and only in the last 60 figured out that nature was not going to drive the changes in climate, but us.

https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm
Have they figured out that climate related deaths have been plummeting for that 100 years despite a rapid increase in population?

No? I’ll give them another 60.
  #176  
Old 11-01-2018, 07:24 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Have they figured out that climate related deaths have been plummeting for that 100 years despite a rapid increase in population?
I have also pointed before many times at the good news from people that investigate how progress has indeed make things better, like the great late statistician Hans Rosling:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/co...c-as-you-think
Quote:
My guess is you feel that me saying that the world is getting better is like me telling you that everything is fine, and that feels ridiculous. I agree. Everything is not fine. We should still be very concerned. As long as there are plane crashes, preventable child deaths, endangered species, climate change sceptics, male chauvinists, crazy dictators, toxic waste, journalists in prison, and girls not getting an education, we cannot relax.
So yes, even the ones that do look at the numbers are telling us that the climate change deniers are the ones that belong as an example of that old kid's song" "one of things is not like the other"

Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
No? I’ll give them another 60.
Oh well, too late for you. It is clear that you became also an example of not being aware of what I and others like Rosling have posted before.

The point that is missed spectacularly is that while everything is getting better, scientists and others that look at the issue would be dumb to not warn others about the dangers that are very likely to make things turn bad. As I have pointed before, we can be optimistic, but it depends on people doing the right thing.

Like them dumping the weakest link, and those are the current Republicans in congress.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 11-01-2018 at 07:29 PM.
  #177  
Old 11-01-2018, 07:54 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,105
There are two things working in opposite directions in regard to climate and human life. On the positive side are advances in technology and medicine, which makes it easy to paint a misleadingly rosy picture. On the negative side are increasing premature deaths from two major impacts: the effects of air pollution, mainly due to particulate matter (PM), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and sulphur dioxide (SO2) -- all from fossil fuels, and the direct effects of climate change, which includes the effects of extreme heat, water shortages, malaria, diarrhoeal disease, malnutrition and starvation from crop failures, and deaths in natural disasters due to extreme weather. The line of argument about improved prospects for human life is one of the most ridiculous angles on climate change denial I've seen yet.
  #178  
Old 11-01-2018, 08:53 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Just stop responding to him until he answers the question I posed in post 94. Until he answers that question engaging with his claims is pointless.
FTR, I'm not posting under any illusions that anything I say will change his views. The stuff I post apparently in response is only to elucidate for other readers how wrong he is. He can't answer your question about what kind of evidence would change his mind because his views aren't informed by evidence, they're informed by the incessant drumbeat of the right-wing spin machine.

Realistically, these people will only come around and stop spouting unscientific nonsense when the political leaders of their own party are forced to acknowledge reality. And that isn't going to happen as long as there's political advantage to be gained from denialism. Oil companies and even coal companies nowadays may publicly say reasonable things about climate change in order to display a veneer of respectability, but when it comes to what really matters -- where they put their money -- they're still going to fund the political careers of those who are committed to opposing inconvenient legislation on clean air or emissions regulation. And they still do a brisk business -- mostly in the shady world of dark money -- in spreading FUD and denialism about climate science. It's a losing battle for them in the long run but they're going to keep it up as long as it's profitable.
  #179  
Old 11-02-2018, 10:43 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
(Also, it makes even less sense to say, "Your policy solution is marginally worse than optimal, therefore I think we should do nothing/exacerbate the problem." Because ultimately, Shodan, that's what the republicans are doing. It is literally worse than doing nothing.)
It is the Democrats who are saying 'nuclear power is marginally worse than optimal, therefore we should spend a huge amount on solutions that are even worse.'

Regards,
Shodan
  #180  
Old 11-02-2018, 11:33 AM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
.....Yet even among conservatives on this board, you're one of the last of the deniers here -- something you might want to reflect upon. Your idea that no one believes in AGW seems to involve a great deal of projection.

What I wanted to address here in terms of new information is this 30-year claim of yours. That isn't true, either. Here's a brief history.

.....30 years ago marked the founding of the IPCC, but the science then was nowhere near what the science is now. Science advances, believe it or not. True, but from what I've seen of your posts on this subject over the years, his/her hypothetical bumper sticker for you -- "I MADE UP MY MIND NOT TO LISTEN TO YOU SO IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT THAT I'M WRONG" -- accurately represents your views and actions. As just noted above, in fact. You willfully ignore evidence and then claim that the science is not persuasive enough.
(post shortened)

Since I have never said that no one believes in MMCO2IE (aka AGW), that projection seems to be yours, not mine. You appear to be willingly to ignore evidence. That doesn't help your cause.

What I am pointing out is that the MMCO2IE side has failed to convince enough voters to change the status quo. Which is true, whether you wish to hear that, or not. If the MMCO2IE side had been able to CONVINCE enough voters that AGW must be addressed immediately, the issue would have already been settled. It hasn't been because your side can't CONVINCE enough voters to buy what your selling.

The IPCC has been around for 30 years. You've pointed out that the/their science has gotten better. What your side has not been able to do for the last 30 years is CONVINCE the opposition, and the fence-sitters, that you're right and they're wrong. You can take my advice, and change your tactics/strategy, or you can waste your time telling me that I said no one believes in AGW. Which action will improve your credibility with the undecided, and unconvinced?
  #181  
Old 11-02-2018, 11:41 AM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Actually the posts that I pointed at showed that people are listening more to the science and to people that do follow the science like me.

As pointed out, thank you for showing all how one should dismiss your uninformed opinion once again.
Actually, I'm pointing out that your side has been unable to CONVINCE enough people to change the status quo. I'm sure there are a thousands of excuses as to why your side has been unable to CONVINCE enough fence-sitters, and deniers, to come into your fold, but those excuses aren't going to change the status quo.

Is your goal to actually change how AGW is handled, or is it your goal to spend even more time explain why you can't? Your choice.
  #182  
Old 11-02-2018, 11:52 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,138
History will see the obvious. Scientists warned about, and were concerned about climate change. Scientists from all over the world. And history will see that American right wing politicians denied it.
  #183  
Old 11-02-2018, 12:02 PM
griffin1977 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,447
I am sure, to the future octopoid paleontologists, they will look like just like the other human fossils that can be found in huge number towards the end of the Anthropene epoch.
  #184  
Old 11-02-2018, 12:18 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
The IPCC has been around for 30 years. You've pointed out that the/their science has gotten better. What your side has not been able to do for the last 30 years is CONVINCE the opposition, and the fence-sitters, that you're right and they're wrong. You can take my advice, and change your tactics/strategy, or you can waste your time telling me that I said no one believes in AGW. Which action will improve your credibility with the undecided, and unconvinced?
Thanks for the advice. But you were asked in post #94 nine days ago what it would take to convince you, personally, to support the stated positions on climate change. You declined to answer and nine days later it seems safe to assume that the real answer is that nothing would convince you. So your vague -- and incorrect -- advice is completely useless. Evidence is useless when beliefs -- like yours -- are not evidence-based. It's also incorrect since I showed you in polls that the majority are, in fact, now convinced about the basics, and every country in the world signed on to the Paris accord, though the US alone pulled out. You ignored this, just like you ignored the question in #94.

You appear to know nothing about the subject and keep harping, falsely but persistently, like a one-trick pony, on the fact that not enough people are convinced. I honestly have no idea at all what you hope to accomplish by this now-tired old tactic. The real problem, as I noted in post #178, is that not enough Republicans claim to be convinced -- and it really is overwhelmingly Republicans -- and that's because they have a political advantage from the well-funded denier sector as long as they can maintain that fiction, even when they're smart enough to know better. That says nothing good about your side, or the prospects that evidence alone can ever sway your side as long as denialism keeps the money rolling in and keeps buying them votes, while the planet continues to deteriorate. And that, my friend, pretty much sums up how history will judge you and your side.
  #185  
Old 11-02-2018, 12:37 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
Actually, I'm pointing out that your side has been unable to CONVINCE enough people to change the status quo. I'm sure there are a thousands of excuses as to why your side has been unable to CONVINCE enough fence-sitters, and deniers, to come into your fold, but those excuses aren't going to change the status quo.

Is your goal to actually change how AGW is handled, or is it your goal to spend even more time explain why you can't? Your choice.
My choice is to point out that this is about the 4th time that you ignore that the polls and studies I cited show that more people are being convinced. Your choice to ignore it is not my problem, what is important is that others learn how pathetic the replies from the opponents to this issue are nowadays.

Anyhow, I know that in the past even scientists at the SDMB have said that I do get it, even that bit about where Greenland is.

  #186  
Old 11-02-2018, 12:59 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
What I am pointing out is that the MMCO2IE side has failed to convince enough voters to change the status quo.
What you mean is that not enough voters have been willing to pay attention to the science on this issue. There are a number of reasons for that, including deliberate disinformation campaigns by science deniers. Trying to chalk the whole phenomenon up to a mere failure of persuasion on the climate-science side is merely passing the buck.

Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge
What your side has not been able to do for the last 30 years is CONVINCE the opposition, and the fence-sitters, that you're right and they're wrong.
Actually, it appears that plenty of the "opposition" (i.e., organized science deniers) are indeed quite convinced by the facts of climate science. (Look, for example, at efforts by fossil-fuel companies to take advantage of opportunities offered by reductions in Arctic ice, which would be a completely idiotic move if they expected the Arctic ice to come back any time soon.)

But the science deniers are not letting their conviction of the scientific facts stand in the way of their profit-motivated efforts to keep foisting science denial on ignorant, lazy and gullible members of the public.

Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge
You can take my advice, and change your tactics/strategy
Except that you keep on refusing to tell us what "change" of "tactics/strategy" you are supposedly "advising". Even though you've been repeatedly asked to tell us:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BPC
What would convince you that anthropogenic climate change is :

A) real,
B) a bad thing, and
C) something we should take steps to mitigate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu
So if you won't listen to facts and reason, and you won't listen to reproach and criticism, what WILL you listen to? Should we start ad campaigns claiming that learning the facts about climate change will make your penis bigger, or something? Do you want to be lied to, since you are evidently determined not to be persuaded by the truth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup
You willfully ignore evidence and then claim that the science is not persuasive enough.
Basically, doorhinge, you keep telling us that you're determined to ignore all arguments to convince you, and then criticizing the arguments for not being sufficiently convincing. "It's all YOUR fault that you haven't persuaded me even though I've already made up my mind not to listen to anything you say!"
  #187  
Old 11-02-2018, 01:10 PM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Thanks for the advice. But you were asked in post #94 nine days ago what it would take to convince you, personally, to support the stated positions on climate change. You declined to answer and nine days later it seems safe to assume that the real answer is that nothing would convince you. So your vague -- and incorrect -- advice is completely useless. Evidence is useless when beliefs -- like yours -- are not evidence-based.
(post shortened)

Several people have tried to hijack this thread. Why should I help them? My position hasn't changed. I'm saying that the MMCO2IE side hasn't been able to CONVINCE enough of their opposition to change their minds on the issue. If the MMCO2IE side had been successful, this thread wouldn't have been necessary, would it.
  #188  
Old 11-02-2018, 01:15 PM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
My choice is to point out that this is about the 4th time that you ignore that the polls and studies I cited show that more people are being convinced.
(post shortened)

That's great. More people are being convinced. And yet you have failed to achieve your goal. I'm suggesting that a change of tactics, or strategy, may help your achieve your goal.
  #189  
Old 11-02-2018, 01:23 PM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
What you mean is that not enough voters have been willing to pay attention to the science on this issue.

Basically, doorhinge, you keep telling us that you're determined to ignore all arguments to convince you, and then criticizing the arguments for not being sufficiently convincing. "It's all YOUR fault that you haven't persuaded me even though I've already made up my mind not to listen to anything you say!"
(post shortened)

I've said what I meant to say. Your interpretation of what you wish I had said is your interpretation. If you want to have both sides of the conversation, why do you need a public forum to do so?

p.s. Why are you quoting me saying something I did not say?
  #190  
Old 11-02-2018, 02:20 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
(post shortened)

That's great. More people are being convinced. And yet you have failed to achieve your goal. I'm suggesting that a change of tactics, or strategy, may help your achieve your goal.
Yeah, what I do works, and I should stop...



Or, keep going like the suffragettes, the end prohibition guys, the anti tobacco people, the build sewers to prevent cholera, etc. that had to spent decades pointing what needed to be done until change takes place.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 11-02-2018 at 02:21 PM.
  #191  
Old 11-02-2018, 02:23 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
I'm suggesting that a change of tactics, or strategy, may help your achieve your goal.
What "tactics or strategy" are you "suggesting" that we "change" to in order to be more effective, in your view? In other words, what "tactics or strategy" are you saying would be more effective in convincing you? Once again, what you keep failing to address here are those same previously-repeated questions and comments:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BPC
What would convince you that anthropogenic climate change is :

A) real,
B) a bad thing, and
C) something we should take steps to mitigate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu
So if you won't listen to facts and reason, and you won't listen to reproach and criticism, what WILL you listen to? Should we start ad campaigns claiming that learning the facts about climate change will make your penis bigger, or something? Do you want to be lied to, since you are evidently determined not to be persuaded by the truth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup
You willfully ignore evidence and then claim that the science is not persuasive enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge
I've said what I meant to say.
Why do you keep refusing to address the above-repeated questions and comments? Your constantly repeated criticisms to the effect of "It's all YOUR fault that you haven't persuaded me even though I've already made up my mind not to listen to anything you say!" are evading those questions, not answering them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge
p.s. Why are you quoting me saying something I did not say?
I didn't quote you saying something you did not say. If you feel I did, though, you are certainly free to report it to the mods.
  #192  
Old 11-02-2018, 02:44 PM
Wolf333 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
(post shortened)



That's great. More people are being convinced. And yet you have failed to achieve your goal. I'm suggesting that a change of tactics, or strategy, may help your achieve your goal.

Aybe is shills like ox news (among many others) would stop spreading bullshit, it would be much easier to convince folks that the non-bullshit is actually true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  #193  
Old 11-02-2018, 02:47 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf333 View Post
Aybe is shills like ox news
? = "Maybe if shills like Fox News"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf333
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I feel your pain, brother.
  #194  
Old 11-03-2018, 12:04 AM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
? = "Maybe if shills like Fox News"?
Fox, Ox, they both produce a lot of shit.
  #195  
Old 11-03-2018, 12:07 AM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
(post shortened)

That's great. More people are being convinced. And yet you have failed to achieve your goal. I'm suggesting that a change of tactics, or strategy, may help your achieve your goal.
What percent of the blame do you put on Republican politicians who call climate change a hoax? And what do you propose we do about them?
  #196  
Old 11-03-2018, 01:12 AM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Yeah, what I do works, and I should stop...



Or, keep going like the suffragettes, the end prohibition guys, the anti tobacco people, the build sewers to prevent cholera, etc. that had to spent decades pointing what needed to be done until change takes place.
All well and good, but the issue at hand here has the potential to be of far greater concern than those other things. Our inaction could possibly spell the loss of many more species on Earth than just those annoying h.s. critters. You can play the long game until you look up and see a few seconds left on the clock and no timeouts left. What do you do then?

Of course, we may even be past that point. The damage done in recent decades may already be irrecoverable, short of malthusian extremes. If that were the case, what should we do, if no action can lead to any real benefit and the most deprecable course cannot yield notably greater loss?
  #197  
Old 11-03-2018, 03:28 AM
Wolf333 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
? = "Maybe if shills like Fox News"?





I feel your pain, brother.


Yep, should have edited before posting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  #198  
Old 11-03-2018, 07:52 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
All well and good, but the issue at hand here has the potential to be of far greater concern than those other things. Our inaction could possibly spell the loss of many more species on Earth than just those annoying h.s. critters. You can play the long game until you look up and see a few seconds left on the clock and no timeouts left. What do you do then?
As history shows then we all lose, even the crowd in the stands. As history shows too, then the perpetrators that funded or organized the inaction are taken to the wall and shot. And many times even the ones in power that supported that inaction will get it. Now, since I think we are getting better in many fronts what I expect in this case is not that drastic, The people will vote the rascal deniers out of power and like the tobacco industry make the fossil fuel industry pay for the new industries that will help educate humanity to better mitigate and/or adapt to the changes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
Of course, we may even be past that point. The damage done in recent decades may already be irrecoverable, short of malthusian extremes. If that were the case, what should we do, if no action can lead to any real benefit and the most deprecable course cannot yield notably greater loss?
The problem here is that even worse scenarios can take place, the longer we allow leadership that ignores the issue the worse it will be. Looking at history we can see that we either get busy changing and adapting to the changes or get busy dying.

Because I think we will more likely do the former, it will then be the turn of better aware citizens to get better leadership.


The point is not just for all, but also to say to the misleaders in industry and governments to be wise and selfish. Yes, selfish, in the sense that they should realize that if their hides are not on the line, the ones of their descendants will be.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 11-03-2018 at 07:53 AM.
  #199  
Old 11-03-2018, 11:53 AM
RaftPeople is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: 7-Eleven
Posts: 6,733
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
That's one of the complaints that I have heard in the nuclear community. They are responsible for containing every bit of their waste, even things like Tritium and Xenon emissions need to be at undetectable levels. So, a nuclear plant ends up putting out far less radiation than a coal plant, which just spews all of its waste, including radioactive materials, into the air for free.
Except for when something unexpected happens and radiation is released in to air/ground/water where it is expensive and challenging to contain:
Three Mile Island
Chernobyl
Hanford
Fukushima
(and probably others I'm not aware of)
  #200  
Old 11-03-2018, 12:43 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
As history shows then we all lose, even the crowd in the stands. As history shows too, then the perpetrators that funded or organized the inaction are taken to the wall and shot. And many times even the ones in power that supported that inaction will get it. Now, since I think we are getting better in many fronts what I expect in this case is not that drastic, The people will vote the rascal deniers out of power and like the tobacco industry make the fossil fuel industry pay for the new industries that will help educate humanity to better mitigate and/or adapt to the changes.
Funny you should mention tobacco. The big players were paddled firmly on the butt, yet they are still around. Have you been to a grocery store lately? They still sell cigarettes. The big players are drawing in billions in net revenue. It looks very much like no one was really put up against the wall. It was all justice theatre.

What about British Petroleum, who did a very fine job fouling the gulf? Was anyone punished for that? Exxon got their liability for fouling Prince William Sound reduced to a little more than a rounding error relative to their overall revenue, simply outlasting the plaintiffs by dragging the case on for most of two decades. And Taylor Energy only recently settled a case related to a persistent leak that is now greater in volume than Deepwater Horizon.

So far, it looks like no one is truly being put up against the wall. Perhaps ever.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:24 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017