Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 03-27-2019, 06:43 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
He's proposing ways of coping with that. That's kind of the problem.
That's a fair point.
  #52  
Old 03-27-2019, 06:47 PM
snowthx's Avatar
snowthx is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sacratomato area
Posts: 3,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
How do you think politicians would be "preventing them from seeing light"?
Denying climate science, refusing to consider policy changes that may have positive impacts on emissions, easing emissions standards, supporting policy that does not encourage innovation in the energy sector (coal), and mocking proposals that did not originate in one's party, as a few examples.
  #53  
Old 03-27-2019, 07:02 PM
Lemur866's Avatar
Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 22,373
Dude.

Get your story straight. Is climate change a hoax? Or is it such a serious problem that there's no way we can solve it with the current generation of scientists and engineers, and we have to wait another 30 years until we've trained many, many, many more scientists and engineers, and they can solve the problem.

Because both positions are fucking moronic.
  #54  
Old 03-27-2019, 07:03 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
How do you think politicians would be "preventing them from seeing light"?
If all the "effective solutions" "in-hand now" rely on action by our notoriously-dysfunctional federal government, I don't think that I'd use the word "effective" to describe them. They sound more like fantasies.

Anyways, I thought you were imaging some sort of government censorship or suppression or something. People and organizations are not being prevented from sharing or publicizing their ideas or "effective solutions", agreed?

They maybe haven't yet managed to persuade enough of our elected officials of their effectiveness to provide taxpayer funds to support them, but that seems a far cry from "preventing them from seeing light".
  #55  
Old 03-27-2019, 07:38 PM
nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 12,415
Only if you use cloth diapers.
  #56  
Old 03-27-2019, 07:48 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
They maybe haven't yet managed to persuade enough of our elected officials of their effectiveness to provide taxpayer funds to support them, but that seems a far cry from "preventing them from seeing light".
So the new generation of American babies will come up with a novel way of persuading enough elected officials to provide taxpayer funds?
  #57  
Old 03-27-2019, 07:58 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
So the new generation of American babies will come up with a novel way of persuading enough elected officials to provide taxpayer funds?
Perhaps. The current generation of American babies seem to generally suck at it.
  #58  
Old 03-27-2019, 10:01 PM
The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,673
You support a party that puts people in charge who think global warming could never happen because Jesus wouldn't let it happen. Any solutions you suggest or ideas you're told to believe must be viewed through that lens.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #59  
Old 03-28-2019, 01:56 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,174
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tooth View Post
You support a party that puts people in charge who think global warming could never happen because Jesus wouldn't let it happen. Any solutions you suggest or ideas you're told to believe must be viewed through that lens.
Pretty much. Mike Lee is fairly obviously arguing in bad faith here. You can't support the republicans and pretend to care about climate change.
  #60  
Old 03-28-2019, 02:13 AM
The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,673
They can pretend to care, but they shouldn't expect me to believe them.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #61  
Old 03-28-2019, 03:04 AM
scudsucker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 277
Technically, children are 18% carbon so having multiple children sequesters that carbon for their life....

I'm certain that was what Mr. Lee was intending to mean..
  #62  
Old 03-28-2019, 03:11 AM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur866 View Post
You know what I think? People who don't want kids shouldn't have kids.

I guess your argument is that everyone should start cranking out kids, because maybe one of those kids is going to be a genius who solves climate change, and if people have fewer kids it's less likely that our supergenius savior will be born. The more kids, the better.

Of course we don't wanna spend money on schools or healthcare for these kids, that would be ridiculous socialism. The future supergenius savior of humanity isn't going to need a government school to save us all, Christian homeschooling is a great way to educate the future scientists and engineers America needs.
Where do you get all that?

Dont have kids if you are not willing to take care of them.

Dont let others shame you for having children if you want them just because THEY think bringing more children into the world is wrong.

Only have children you have the resources to support. For my wife and I it was 2. I know other families with many more and thats also ok.
  #63  
Old 03-28-2019, 09:37 AM
Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
Only have children you have the resources to support. For my wife and I it was 2.
Well, for a narrow definition of "support" that means "pay for typical out-of-pocket expenses of childhood, not counting most of the massive physical and economic infrastructure required to provide things that childen need". I seriously doubt that you and your wife independently built entire schools and hospitals and road networks to provide for the needs of your two children, for example.
  #64  
Old 03-28-2019, 09:50 AM
Jasmine's Avatar
Jasmine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
I've never liked the idea of "I care for the environment and there are way too many humans so I'm going to do my part and not have children".

What good are you doing?
The OP asked if having kids would somehow mysteriously address the issue of climate change. I answered no and that, in fact, the science indicates that it might actually have the opposite effect. From that you got, "... [there are] way too many humans so I'm going to do my part and not have children"? I never said that.

Having said that, however, I would like to point out that there are some animal species that actually control reproduction based on whether or not environmental conditions are favorable to them. They are termed, "opportunistic breeders".
  #65  
Old 03-28-2019, 10:50 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Perhaps. The current generation of American babies seem to generally suck at it.
A bit of history is needed here, there was once a time when Newt Gingrich listened to the science; but as soon he and other Republicans noticed that: pumping up the nonsense of the tea party, with money from fossil fuel interests and other conservatives, gave them victories; then Newt and the Republicans did turn into bigger denier babies.
  #66  
Old 03-28-2019, 11:06 AM
kenobi 65's Avatar
kenobi 65 is online now
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 14,599
If the premise is that some American baby will grow up and come up with the solution to climate change, maybe a more immediate way to make sure that this happens is to make certain that the yet-unidentified genius gets a good education, and is able to make the most of their gifts.

So, maybe, then, cutting the Department of Education's budget by 10%, while pushing funding towards charter schools, isn't a great idea. Or, is the base assumption also that the yet-unidentified genius must be coming from a wealthy conservative family?
  #67  
Old 03-28-2019, 12:17 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm a Republican, and one of Senator Lee's constituents. I'll let him flesh out his own argument:
Ah. So his argument is that if we ignore the problem and breed more, someone will magically appear out of the increased population to create a technological solution to make the problem go away.

Having provided his ideas in his own words, I am sure that you are now going to work assiduously to vote him out of office. (Having a genuine nutcase a a representative would certainly encourage me to seek his removal.)

Given that the IPCC has already provided a prospective date for a tipping point that is less than one generation in the future and given that such highly conservative bodies as the U.S. military and the World Bank accept this judgment and are trying to make plans to meet it, it is more than stupid to encourage greater procreation as the answer to the problem.

I am not a ZPG enthusiast ans I am really not a fan of "no breeding" solutions, but taking the tack that we want to encourage more children as an answer is a sign of a refusal to see reality.

Last edited by tomndebb; 03-28-2019 at 12:18 PM.
  #68  
Old 03-28-2019, 01:03 PM
snowthx's Avatar
snowthx is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sacratomato area
Posts: 3,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
I am not a ZPG enthusiast ans I am really not a fan of "no breeding" solutions, but taking the tack that we want to encourage more children as an answer is a sign of a refusal to see reality.
Here is one thing (of many) I learned here on the Straight Dope:
There is a difference between ignorance and stupidity: Being ignorant about something is OK - it only means you have not learned facts about that something yet. If you have an opportunity to learn facts about that something before you form an opinion about it, but refuse, you are stupid. Stupid and willfully ignorant (Lee).
  #69  
Old 03-28-2019, 01:10 PM
Folly's Avatar
Folly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Chicago! (no more burbs)
Posts: 2,192

Will having children solve climate change?


Worst pickup line ever.
  #70  
Old 03-28-2019, 01:40 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
... Having provided his ideas in his own words, I am sure that you are now going to work assiduously to vote him out of office. ...
Brace yourself for some disappointment. I like Senator Lee. I'd even say I'm delighted that he's my Senator. I am very likely to continue to vote for him, contribute to his re-election campaigns, and volunteer my time.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 03-28-2019 at 01:41 PM.
  #71  
Old 03-28-2019, 01:45 PM
Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
Ah. So his argument is that if we ignore the problem and breed more, someone will magically appear out of the increased population to create a technological solution to make the problem go away.
His "argument" is essentially the hope that kicking the climate-change-crisis can down the road thirty or forty years will allow him to complete his own political career (and life) without having to confront the consequences of Republican climate-denial folly, as well as appealing to his religious-conservative constituency in the meantime with cozy family-values buzzwords.

I'm not at all surprised that this is the tack Lee is taking, but I am somewhat surprised that HurricaneDitka is falling for it as an "argument" in any meaningful sense. It's just another bullshit dump to justify disregarding science in favor of the short-term bliss of irresponsible ignorance.
  #72  
Old 03-28-2019, 01:55 PM
Chingon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 475
Fear over the Great Replacement is quite real.
  #73  
Old 03-28-2019, 02:13 PM
Stranger On A Train is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 19,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
Ah. So his argument is that if we ignore the problem and breed more, someone will magically appear out of the increased population to create a technological solution to make the problem go away.
Even setting aside the issue, the notion that we’re going to come up with some technomagical solution that will rapidly reverse climate change in the foreseeable future is inherently bogus. Even assuming someone creates a device that can process carbon dioxide out of air and sequester it with high efficiency (which given the 400 parts per million concentration is implausible to say the least) the amount of energy above and beyond projected increases in demand that would be required are enormous, on the order of all of the energy produced by burning the hydrocarbon fuels in the first place. This “argument”, such as it is, is purely a head-burying exercise, which is why it is presented in a deliberately absurdist fashion; the ridiculousness of the presentation distracts from the asininity of the essential premise.

Stranger
  #74  
Old 03-28-2019, 03:54 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Brace yourself for some disappointment. I like Senator Lee. I'd even say I'm delighted that he's my Senator. I am very likely to continue to vote for him, contribute to his re-election campaigns, and volunteer my time.
Well, voting for Jar Jar Binks did wonders for the Galactic Senate..

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/28/a...-new-deal.html
  #75  
Old 03-28-2019, 04:10 PM
am77494 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,554
Reducing carbon footprints is one of the way to solve climate change. The other technology (with risks as of today) is global dimming or climate engineering.

Certainly we should invest and support reducing carbon footprint but the way things are going it looks increasingly important to invest in global dimming.

I am apolitical (at least in my own mind) and I think Climate engineering is not talked about enough.
  #76  
Old 03-28-2019, 04:23 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,758
To paraphrase AOC, if Mike Lee can become a senator, you can do anything.
  #77  
Old 03-28-2019, 05:18 PM
The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Brace yourself for some disappointment. I like Senator Lee. I'd even say I'm delighted that he's my Senator. I am very likely to continue to vote for him, contribute to his re-election campaigns, and volunteer my time.
I will assume your delightful feelings are based on the belief he shares with you on matters of conservation because no one capable of using a computer could possibly see his current silly garbage as anything other than the ravings of a lunatic.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #78  
Old 03-28-2019, 05:18 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Brace yourself for some disappointment. I like Senator Lee. I'd even say I'm delighted that he's my Senator. I am very likely to continue to vote for him, contribute to his re-election campaigns, and volunteer my time.
Rationality forces me to assume that you don't give a flying fuck about the environment then, or other humans who have to live in the environment, and that you presume that you'll die naturally before the environment gets around to making your life miserable. Because it's simply impossible that you can think "let's wait at least twenty years before doing anything" is in any way whatsoever a solution. It's also impossible to believe that Lee himself thinks it's not the most moronic thing ever. It's impossible not to think that he's a morally bankrupt liar and performance artist - at least on the subject of climate change.

Which, again, is a perfectly cromulent thing for him to be, if you're apathetic to the destruction of the planet and hurting the rest of humanity.
  #79  
Old 03-28-2019, 05:25 PM
Stranger On A Train is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 19,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by am77494 View Post
Reducing carbon footprints is one of the way to solve climate change. The other technology (with risks as of today) is global dimming or climate engineering.

Certainly we should invest and support reducing carbon footprint but the way things are going it looks increasingly important to invest in global dimming.

I am apolitical (at least in my own mind) and I think Climate engineering is not talked about enough.
There are plenty of people “talking” about geoengineering the atmosphere (“climate engineering”), and there are numerous concepts for abating the effects of climate warming or carbon dioxide removal. The problem with them is that is all they are; concepts without any evidence or reason to believe that they can be deployed with sufficient speed on a scale to have any measurable impact, and notwithstanding the uncertainty of unintended consequences or positive feedback. “Global dimming”—the injection of light-blocking particulates into the upper atmosphere to increase albado and reduce direct irradiance at Earth’s surface—is a perfect example of this. The amount of energy to distribute and maintain a sufficient particulate density to have a measurable effect would dwarf current world power output and it would have to be maintained continuously as particles precipitate out. There are the unknown consequences of reducing solar incidence on photosynthetic organisms and those that depend upon them for energy and nutrients—which is all life on Earth—and whatever effect a mass contamination of the hydrologic cycle will have, including acidification of oceans and groundwater, interference with the natural sulfur and nitrogen cycles, and what the overall effect would be on the complex interactons of the biosphere. It isn’t as if we have a spare world to play around with, and as good at prediction as simulations of the global climate system are becoming, they are still fairly crude models that do not incorporate complex feedback of the biosphere into climate, so making radical changes to the only planet we have to live on may be like remodleing your house by setting it on fire and trying to demo it before it burns to the ground.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
To paraphrase AOC, if Mike Lee can become a senator, you can do anything.
But if you are like Mike Lee, you probably shouldn’t.

Stranger
  #80  
Old 03-28-2019, 05:26 PM
Stranger On A Train is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 19,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tooth View Post
I will assume your delightful feelings are based on the belief he shares with you on matters of conservation because no one capable of using a computer could possibly see his current silly garbage as anything other than the ravings of a lunatic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Which, again, is a perfectly cromulent thing for him to be, if you're apathetic to the destruction of the planet and hurting the rest of humanity.
Don’t engage with him. He’s just looking for exactly the kind of outrage and attention you are feeding him.

Stranger
  #81  
Old 03-28-2019, 05:33 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
Don’t engage with him. He’s just looking for exactly the kind of outrage and attention you are feeding him.

Stranger
Acknowledged. Up until that comment he was pretty much on point, but when he responded to the bait about changing his political behavior he, and the comment he responded to, ceased to be on-topic.
  #82  
Old 03-28-2019, 05:40 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tooth View Post
I will assume your delightful feelings are based on the belief he shares with you on matters of conservation because no one capable of using a computer could possibly see his current silly garbage as anything other than the ravings of a lunatic.
I agree with Senator Lee on a great many political issues. I recognize that the speech that inspired this thread was light-hearted mocking of the GND.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 03-28-2019 at 05:42 PM.
  #83  
Old 03-28-2019, 05:42 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I agree with Senator Lee on a great many political issues. I recognize that the speech that inspired this thread was light-hearted mocking of the GND.
That's nice. How inspired do you consider his "let's let our kids deal with it" argument, and how appropriate do you consider that "light-hearted mocking"?

Last edited by begbert2; 03-28-2019 at 05:43 PM.
  #84  
Old 03-28-2019, 05:57 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
That's nice. How inspired do you consider his "let's let our kids deal with it" argument...
I think there have been a good number of imagined crises throughout our history that have been resolved through improving technology. For example, in 1968 Paul Ehrlich published The Population Bomb which started with this terrifying prediction:
Quote:
The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate ...
If you can't see echoes of that in the current global warming frenzy, and thus some merits to Senator Lee's argument, I don't know what else to tell you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
... and how appropriate do you consider that "light-hearted mocking"?
For the GND? Very.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 03-28-2019 at 05:58 PM.
  #85  
Old 03-28-2019, 06:05 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
If you can't see echoes of that in the current global warming frenzy, and thus some merits to Senator Lee's argument, I don't know what else to tell you.
Even if all of modern environmental science is wrong (and that's what it would take), that doesn't make stupid less stupid. And his argument would have been stupid even if he was right about global warming.
  #86  
Old 03-28-2019, 06:13 PM
The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I agree with Senator Lee on a great many political issues. I recognize that the speech that inspired this thread was light-hearted mocking of the GND.
"I didn't meeeeeeean iiiiiiitttt" is the argument of a child.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #87  
Old 03-28-2019, 06:15 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
... And his argument would have been stupid even if he was right about global warming.
Would you care to elaborate on this point at all?
  #88  
Old 03-28-2019, 06:15 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 43,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
If you can't see echoes of that in the current global warming frenzy, and thus some merits to Senator Lee's argument, I don't know what else to tell you.
If you can't tell the difference between one guy who wrote a pop-science book fifty years ago, and the overwhelming consensus of virtually every scientist who as studied the issue, across multiple disciplines, then I don't know what to tell you.

At least, I don't know what to tell you that would be appropriate for this forum.
  #89  
Old 03-28-2019, 06:34 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
If you can't tell the difference between one guy who wrote a pop-science book fifty years ago, and the overwhelming consensus of virtually every scientist who as studied the issue, across multiple disciplines, then I don't know what to tell you.

At least, I don't know what to tell you that would be appropriate for this forum.
What's your understanding of the scientific community's "consensus" on global food production in the late '60's? Was he just "one guy who wrote a pop-science book fifty years ago" or did significant portions of the scientific community agree with the basic thrust of his argument? Was Paul Ehrlich widely-discredited as a nut-job back then?
  #90  
Old 03-28-2019, 06:36 PM
The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,673
Maybe, maybe not. Pick whichever answer you believe lends the most credence to your Senator's mad ravings.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #91  
Old 03-28-2019, 06:37 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
What's your understanding of the scientific community's "consensus" on global food production in the late '60's? Was he just "one guy who wrote a pop-science book fifty years ago" or did significant portions of the scientific community agree with the basic thrust of his argument? Was Paul Ehrlich widely-discredited as a nut-job back then?
Just checking here, are you putting forth the idea that science in general is unreliable, and can be shown to be so by looking back through time?

This argument that you're typing, presumably, on a computer.
  #92  
Old 03-28-2019, 06:41 PM
Stranger On A Train is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 19,051
The canonical Chinese menu of specious arguments:Global Warming & Climate Change Myths

Stranger
  #93  
Old 03-28-2019, 06:42 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Would you care to elaborate on this point at all?
Sure. "Have more babies and wait for one of the babies to do something about it" is a goddamn stupid argument. Even if you put the moron making it next to another moron crowing that aliens are eating his underwear, it doesn't become less of a stupid argument. There is not a law of conservation of stupidity; stupid things remain stupid even if everything else around them is stupid.

So even if global warming *was* a giant worldwide conspiracy of people telling lies and fabricating data on a truly massive scale for literally no reason, as you and he apparently believe, he'd still be a goddamn idiot for saying that nonsense.
  #94  
Old 03-28-2019, 06:52 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Just checking here, are you putting forth the idea that science in general is unreliable, and can be shown to be so by looking back through time? ...
I think that looking back through time shows us that there have been times where scientists / the scientific community / "science" (if you feel so inclined to wrap it in a mantle of appeal-to-authority) have gotten things wrong, sometimes pretty big things.
  #95  
Old 03-28-2019, 06:59 PM
snowthx's Avatar
snowthx is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sacratomato area
Posts: 3,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think that looking back through time shows us that there have been times where scientists / the scientific community / "science" (if you feel so inclined to wrap it in a mantle of appeal-to-authority) have gotten things wrong, sometimes pretty big things.
Like what?
  #96  
Old 03-28-2019, 07:00 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think that looking back through time shows us that there have been times where scientists / the scientific community / "science" (if you feel so inclined to wrap it in a mantle of appeal-to-authority) have gotten things wrong, sometimes pretty big things.
And thus we can cherry-pick which scientific conclusions to believe based on personal/political convenience, without regard of the relative level of consensus or evidence for the conclusion in question.
  #97  
Old 03-28-2019, 07:00 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by snowthx View Post
Like what?
Post #84 contains a good example.
  #98  
Old 03-28-2019, 07:07 PM
snowthx's Avatar
snowthx is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sacratomato area
Posts: 3,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Post #84 contains a good example.
OK. Not enough food to go around. Can you name a few more? You said "big things". I am not trying to be difficult, but want to see what you consider big sciency gaffs that were big and impactful. There is more than the population thing, right?
  #99  
Old 03-28-2019, 07:21 PM
am77494 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
There are plenty of people “talking” about geoengineering the atmosphere (“climate engineering”), and there are numerous concepts for abating the effects of climate warming or carbon dioxide removal. The problem with them is that is all they are; concepts without any evidence or reason to believe that they can .....

Stranger
Agree with you Stranger with reservations. These are absolutely not off the shelf technologies but not totally conceptual either. China did some weather engineering for the Olympic Games and volcanoes have naturally dimmed earth from time to time.

If I compare the feasibility of the technology to the feasibility of many millions of dollars of research on CO2 removal from the atmosphere, I think the climate engineering technologies come out ahead. Many other whacko non feasible projects have been funded as well.

Anyways about 10 years back, most Climate Scientists would look down at you if you asked them about climate engineering and even the IPCC had just a small paragraph on it in its report.

But things are changing for the better. This month this report came out from Harvard (Baby steps I know) https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/files...ngineering.pdf

The conclusion is interesting :”Our results do not, however, support the common claims that SG would inevitably lead to significant harms to some regions, nor the claims that SG’s benefits and harms always have a strongly unequal distribution”
  #100  
Old 03-28-2019, 07:37 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by snowthx View Post
OK. Not enough food to go around. Can you name a few more? You said "big things". I am not trying to be difficult, but want to see what you consider big sciency gaffs that were big and impactful. There is more than the population thing, right?
Sure.

This article describes a radical shift in understanding in the field of geology, an overturning of the "consensus".

I don't know how old you were or where or when you went to school, but it's probable that you were taught about the "Big Bang Theory" as a child. I don't even claim to understand all the details of how it works, but I can see there is some doubt about the matter now.
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 12:15 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 © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017