Straight Dope Message Board

[raventhief]

Originally Posted by SamuelA

https://ibb.co/hy9k1GP

Yep, these cats are really suffering. I'm such an asshole, mistreating the animals.

Which one were you planning on abandoning? 951

[SamuelA]

Originally Posted by wolfpup

Yeah, but you're not one of them. You're on the opposite end of the spectrum, a kind of Dunning-Kruger specimen -- an arrogant immature blowhard with limited knowledge about technology, biology, or anything else in the world, who is in serious need of a major dose of humility. You might want to revisit the first page of this thread to remind yourself of that fact, posts #33 and #37 being perhaps especially pertinent, or this one from the Omnibus thread in which we find that you're also a racist douchebag with redneck views on social issues -- although I'm willing to be kind and just chalk that up to immaturity.

But on technology issues, you are misunderstanding the point again, as usual. No one has argued that these advanced technologies aren't possible. It's your tediously predictable, pretentious, and naive take on them that is so consistently entertaining. Your solution to climate change by geoengineering changes to the atmosphere is a great example of this because it rather beautifully exemplifies three recurring stupidities in your various pontifications: (1) the misapplication of technology (2) in a way that won't work and (3) would have worse side effects than the problem it's trying to solve. Your bloviations don't always combine all three elements, but you really hit the trifecta with this one!

And I have to say I always enjoy the threads where you declare "I know what I'm talking about" (an actual quote) when you clearly don't, and engage in arguments with professionals in their fields who clearly do. It's the same phenomenon as what might be called "laughably simplistic extrapolation" that pervades most of your bloviations: you have a vague understanding of how a neuron works, therefore, everything about how the mind works is just a matter of extrapolating some further details (entire fields of study like neuroscience and cognitive science can be dismissed as useless and unnecessary -- in fact I think you once explained to us that cognitive science was really just philosophy!); likewise, general artificial intelligence of any level is just a SMOP -- a Small Matter Of Programming! How simple the world is when one is a raving genius with a gigantic throbbing brain!

You sure wasted a lot of mental energy coming up with these insults.

I know I'm pretty smart, but I also know there's a lot I don't know. The conclusions I reach are just building on what I do know well. Sometimes I do know a layer of things well enough that further reaching conclusions are reachable.

Like, climate for example. If I take it as given that a thin layer of cheap gas injected with low energy (in the scheme of things - it would still be a massive chemical plant and apparatus costing billions) blocks insolation, I don't need to know all the details of 8 million separate climate processes to say that this would probably be an improvement over doomsday.

See what I mean? I don't know a tremendous amount of details but if the top level abstraction is correct, they don't matter to reach the conclusion that something would be an improvement.

And, frankly, I'm not even invested in this as a solution - all I asked about the climate was : if we take it as a given that a cheap gas exists that can be injected at high altitude that acts the opposite of a heating gas, and we conduct experiments, both numerical and real, to conclude it works as expected, this would be a valid approach to the problem. Maybe the widespread international rejection of considering the idea is incorrect, it's not historically unprecedented for huge numbers of people to be wrong.

Some problems cannot be isolated in such a manner and sure, only world class experts can weigh in on them. Or, in some cases, no one alive is really qualified to do so.

Take complex problems like human aging or Alzheimer's. No one alive knows what biological process to tamper with to block either, and it very well might require hundreds* of very exact changes to stop, not just a few simple drugs.

Shrug. You can comfort yourself with your incorrect conclusions about me at night, I guess, but they are wrong. Whatever you say or whatever anyone here says, if the conclusion doesn't fit the evidence, it's wrong.

*or thousands or some really huge number, it doesn't matter. You'll use even this as a "proof" that I must be dumb. 952

[SamuelA]

For that matter, wolfpup, what do you get out of all of this? Why do you waste so much text trying to put me down? What is your purpose in posting such insults?

While I've said "I'm smart" above, really, the conclusions I reach that anger you so much are simple logical and obvious conclusions any rational agent would reach, given a finite input set of data. Whether they are human or some computer algorithm.

So, sure, percentile wise my brain tissue may be more functional than most people, but really, the evidence speaks for itself. If someone knows that a human brain is a system made of smaller parts, and that when we die it all dissolves into goo, and they know that religion is a bunch of obvious lies, then there is only one valid conclusion any rational agent would reach.

I'm not smart or clever for reaching the same answer hundreds of thousands of other people with the same knowledge have reached.

Same with climate engineering or nanotechnology or self replicating factories or anything else. All very obvious ideas that very obviously will be seen eventually, they are all as certain to happen as nuclear fission was once it was demonstrated to work.

Your personal opinions, and my personal opinions, mean absolutely nothing.

So for those of us in this thread who aren't reaching the right answer, well, what can I say? There's been a process failure. Each of you fails to compute the correct answer for the evidence you've been given, and then has to come on the internet and argue about it.

Why do you do this? I have not the slightest idea. Why do I do this? Because I'm frustrated when I see the mass of humanity around me making frankly stupid decisions and I just want to know why.

“We spend a great deal of time studying history," Hawking told the lecture, "which, let’s face it, is mostly the history of stupidity."

I guess it doesn't matter why. I think I'm done with this thread. It doesn't matter if the answers I've generated are correct or not. They are the obvious answers anyone would generate, given the same facts. The fact that most of you can't see them isn't a failing I can rectify. 953

[cochrane]

If they're only obvious to you, maybe it isn't our fault. 954

[wolfpup]

Originally Posted by SamuelA

I know I'm pretty smart, but I also know there's a lot I don't know. The conclusions I reach are just building on what I do know well. Sometimes I do know a layer of things well enough that further reaching conclusions are reachable.

Like, climate for example. If I take it as given that a thin layer of cheap gas injected with low energy (in the scheme of things - it would still be a massive chemical plant and apparatus costing billions) blocks insolation, I don't need to know all the details of 8 million separate climate processes to say that this would probably be an improvement over doomsday.

See what I mean? I don't know a tremendous amount of details but if the top level abstraction is correct, they don't matter to reach the conclusion that something would be an improvement.

Originally Posted by SamuelA

... Same with climate engineering or nanotechnology or self replicating factories or anything else. All very obvious ideas that very obviously will be seen eventually, they are all as certain to happen as nuclear fission was once it was demonstrated to work.

Yes, I see what you mean. Climate engineering is a "very obvious" idea that is "certain to happen", and anyone who doesn't see it that way is an idiot. This is obvious from the most rudimentary facts, which you have fortunately mastered. That the rest of us don't see it your way means we're idiots. Got it!

You will note that among these "idiots" you must include the panel of leading international experts on the IPCC Working Group 3 who produced the latest IPCC AR5 report. Working Group 3 specifically addresses the challenges of mitigating climate change. The report runs to nearly 1500 pages and draws from the latest research on every aspect of climate change mitigation from technology, economic, and policy perspectives. Your brilliant "very obvious" idea that is "certain to happen" was not considered even worth a serious discussion. It occupies little more than one paragraph among the 1500 pages, the purpose of which is basically to dismiss the idea.

But of course we must remember the thread you started wherein the point was that scientists don't know how to do science properly, but you do! So I can see how you're comfortable with the idea that you're correct and every scientist in the world is wrong, on this issue or any other. Do you understand now why, as Colibri quite correctly put it, "the combination of ignorance and arrogance is truly breathtaking"?

I cite this as only one representative example, but it applies to most of your pontifications, the general commonality being that the reason things that are "obvious" to you are not obvious to knowledgeable experts is that most of the time you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Originally Posted by SamuelA

Why do you do this? I have not the slightest idea. Why do I do this? Because I'm frustrated when I see the mass of humanity around me making frankly stupid decisions and I just want to know why.

My reasons should be obvious, Sammy. Low information combined with boundless arrogance leads to very stupid conclusions, and arrogant stupidity is intensely annoying, although I grant that sometimes it also has comedic entertainment value. Arrogant blowhards like yourself are easy and deserving targets. 955

[Monty]

Originally Posted by SamuelA

Shrug. I think I was just arguing that a variant of the technology is possible, which it is. But it doesn't mean it would be the usual solution, we don't use a chip fab to make cardboard boxes.

Come on. 'Fess up. You're just a variant of those "sovereign citizen" types, aren't you? Look, I've watched this thread and its clone from afar, but with bemusement and now bafflement at how anyone can be so blindingly and proudly ignorant of not only technology but of actual definitions of words. Just because you want ethe words to mean something else does not mean that happens. Seriously, if stupidity had a Richter scale, yours would rate at least 7.5 on that scale. 956

[SamuelA]

Originally Posted by wolfpup

Yes, I see what you mean. Climate engineering is a "very obvious" idea that is "certain to happen", and anyone who doesn't see it that way is an idiot. This is obvious from the most rudimentary facts, which you have fortunately mastered. That the rest of us don't see it your way means we're idiots. Got it!

You will note that among these "idiots" you must include the panel of leading international experts on the IPCC Working Group 3 who produced the latest IPCC AR5 report. Working Group 3 specifically addresses the challenges of mitigating climate change. The report runs to nearly 1500 pages and draws from the latest research on every aspect of climate change mitigation from technology, economic, and policy perspectives. Your brilliant "very obvious" idea that is "certain to happen" was not considered even worth a serious discussion. It occupies little more than one paragraph among the 1500 pages, the purpose of which is basically to dismiss the idea.

First, climate engineering isn't listed in the paragraph of "certain to happen". So you're misstating my position.

Second, if the math checks out an idea (or are you going to jump in and claim the laws of physics mean we can't change the climate in a positive way?), and the idea gets just 1 paragraph, that would be a sign that it was not given the consideration the idea deserves.

"oh, those semiconductors Bell labs found? Got 1 paragraph at the vacuum tube conference".

Finally: given that CO2 reductions are not happening per any of the IPCC suggested schedules, essentially the policy of the working group is to do nothing at all? That is, they wrote a 1500 page report and asked for something that won't be done?

I can't deny their knowledge in the subject nor do I claim to know better than these people, I'm just pointing out that most people would wonder if "do nothing" is the optimum plan.

"well, we don't really know what to do, so let's just do nothing and let the climate die".

To be fair, that is what the modern "treatment" for aging and Alzheimer's is. Absolutely nothing. 957

[SamuelA]

Originally Posted by wolfpup

You will note that among these "idiots" you must include the panel of leading international experts on the IPCC Working Group 3 who produced the latest IPCC AR5 report. Working Group 3 specifically addresses the challenges of mitigating climate change. The report runs to nearly 1500 pages and draws from the latest research on every aspect of climate change mitigation from technology, economic, and policy perspectives. Your brilliant "very obvious" idea that is "certain to happen" was not considered even worth a serious discussion. It occupies little more than one paragraph among the 1500 pages, the purpose of which is basically to dismiss the idea.

You're a moron. I just looked at the actual fucking IPCC documents, and there are exhaustive discussions of climate mitigation methods. All over the fucking place. And there are specific policy statements that methods that might be a "fix" for the problem are being deliberately left out as to avoid misleading policymakers that climate change has a "quick fix". This matter has been discussed since the 1960s, and the math does appear to check out on it, the IPCC just isn't willing to stake it's reputation on any particular method that might not work. Since the only method that is 100% going to work is reducing CO2. But since that isn't happening, there's other options.

I'm done. If you're just going to fucking lie in order to deliver more insults, why the fuck should I discuss anything with you? Go to hell, idiot. 958

[JohnT]

You OK? 959

[wolfpup]

We can now observe that Sammy is not just an arrogant blowhard, but a shameless liar. Let us count the ways ...

Originally Posted by SamuelA

First, climate engineering isn't listed in the paragraph of "certain to happen". So you're misstating my position.

Am I? Let me highlight in bold the relevant bits so that your defective fevered brain can actually see them, and the rest of us can observe your lie:

Same with climate engineering or nanotechnology or self replicating factories or anything else. All very obvious ideas that very obviously will be seen eventually, they are all as certain to happen as nuclear fission was once it was demonstrated to work.
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...&postcount=953

Originally Posted by SamuelA

Second, if the math checks out an idea (or are you going to jump in and claim the laws of physics mean we can't change the climate in a positive way?), and the idea gets just 1 paragraph, that would be a sign that it was not given the consideration the idea deserves.

"oh, those semiconductors Bell labs found? Got 1 paragraph at the vacuum tube conference".

Yes, this is back to the "scientists don't know how to do science, but I, SamuelA, will show them the way! Fools, all of them!"

Originally Posted by SamuelA

Finally: given that CO2 reductions are not happening per any of the IPCC suggested schedules, essentially the policy of the working group is to do nothing at all? That is, they wrote a 1500 page report and asked for something that won't be done?

I can't deny their knowledge in the subject nor do I claim to know better than these people, I'm just pointing out that most people would wonder if "do nothing" is the optimum plan.

"well, we don't really know what to do, so let's just do nothing and let the climate die".

To be fair, that is what the modern "treatment" for aging and Alzheimer's is. Absolutely nothing.

On this one, there's so much confused misinformation that it's hard to even know where to start, and I can't possibly cover it all briefly. But to the main points of wrongness:

1. The IPCC doesn't have "suggested schedules". This is the exact opposite of what they do. This is another major demonstration of abject ignorance on your part. The IPCC is very specifically non-prescriptive with respect to policy. They used to discuss impacts in terms of emissions scenarios, but now they're cast in terms of end-point CO2 levels called Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs). The basic idea is, pick your end-point target, and these will be the consequences.

2. CO2 reductions absolutely are happening, just not as fast as we would like. Every country on earth signed on to the COP21 Paris accord, until Trump pulled the US out. Everyone else is in.

3. The WG3 report does not resign itself to "do nothing". It provides a very exhaustive list of mitigation options. That's the fucking reason the IPCC gathered together the top experts in the world, and the fucking reason the report was written.

Originally Posted by SamuelA

You're a moron. I just looked at the actual fucking IPCC documents, and there are exhaustive discussions of climate mitigation methods. All over the fucking place.

Wow, you mean the report whose basic fucking purpose was to discuss climate mitigation methods, exactly as I said, actually discussed climate mitigation methods, exactly as I said? Well, color me embarrassed!

You're really not very bright, are you?

Originally Posted by SamuelA

And there are specific policy statements that methods that might be a "fix" for the problem are being deliberately left out as to avoid misleading policymakers that climate change has a "quick fix".

This is total bullshit. The IPCC has always been about completeness and transparency. The reason it says essentially nothing about climate engineering besides CDR (CO2 removal, which is entirely different from the bullshit you're suggesting) is that there's nothing to say about it except that it's probably infeasible and highly risky at best. But yeah, keep telling us how "the math works" (whatever the fuck that means -- have you done whatever "math" is supposedly involved here?) and that this is a "very obvious idea" that is "certain to happen".

You're not just an uninformed moron, you're a shameless liar, and I'm happy to call you out on your lack of ethical decency. This is what the AR5 WG3 actually says about what they call "solar radiation management" (SRM):

Technical Summary, page 61
Knowledge about the possible beneficial or harmful effects of SRM is highly preliminary. SRM would have varying impacts on regional climate variables such as temperature and precipitation, and might result in substantial changes in the global hydrological cycle with uncertain regional effects, for example on monsoon precipitation. Non-climate effects could include possible depletion of stratospheric ozone by stratospheric aerosol injections. A few studies have begun to examine climate and non-climate impacts of SRM, but there is very little agreement in the scientific community on the results or on whether the lack of knowledge requires additional research or eventually field testing of SRM-related technologies. [1.4, 3.3.7, 6.9, 13.4.4]

3.3.7 Geoengineering, ethics, and justice
Geoengineering technologies face several distinct sets of objections. Some authors have stressed the substantial uncertainties of largescale deployment (for overviews of geoengineering risks see also Schneider (2008) and Sardemann and Grunwald (2010)), while others have argued that some intended and unintended effects of both CDR and SRM could be irreversible (Jamieson, 1996) and that some current uncertainties are unresolvable (Bunzl, 2009). Furthermore, it has been pointed out that geoengineering could make the situation worse rather than better (Hegerl and Solomon, 2009; Fleming, 2010; Hamilton, 2013) and that several technologies lack a viable exit option: SRM in particular would have to be maintained as long as GHG concentrations remain elevated (The Royal Society, 2009).

And that's why they don't talk about it beyond basically just dismissing it. It's basically a pipe dream, unless there's some unknown miracle breakthrough, one with no pollution consequences whatsoever, and even then, we'd still be faced with ocean acidification and a vast array of unprecedented unknowns. And worst of all, if any of this hypothetically successful SRM ceased for any reason, the earth's temperature would bounce back with such forceful rapidity that it would be utterly catastrophic.

But yeah, Sammy, keep telling us how this is a "certainty". Maybe it can all be done with self-replicating nanobots. Because you've done the math!

I rest my case with this fucking idiot. 960

[SamuelA]

Originally Posted by wolfpup

And that's why they don't talk about it beyond basically just dismissing it. It's basically a pipe dream, unless there's some unknown miracle breakthrough, one with no pollution consequences whatsoever, and even then, we'd still be faced with ocean acidification and a vast array of unprecedented unknowns. And worst of all, if any of this hypothetically successful SRM ceased for any reason, the earth's temperature would bounce back with such forceful rapidity that it would be utterly catastrophic.

Fuck you. That very quote of your doesn't dismiss shit, it refers to previous studies, you moron. Nowhere in your damn quote does it prescriptively say "so, since we've proven this is a bad idea...".

It turns out that because I've been too damn lazy, you've been arguing from an opinion you pulled from your asshole.

No shit there would be some fucking drawbacks to climate engineering. But there's also fucking drawbacks to insulin for diabetes (and yeah you'll die in days without it). It doesn't look like the future is going to have much choice.

You do realize that many of the "successful" models where climate change is controlled call for mass capture and sequestration of CO2 already in the atmosphere. And, well, like the original Moon landing plan, they probably won't happen because they are too expensive to do.

What was the original Moon landing mission plan, by the way? Why was it impractical?

Do you know why it's impractical to remove large quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere? Explain to me why.

And fine, I lied, but every plan to deal with climate change involves some type of climate engineering, whether it be SRM or sequesting CO2. Same fucking thing. So yeah, it fucking looks like the damn facts are in my favor and you're a fucking idiot.

Go back to teaching high school or whatever you do. Though I think you're a shitty teacher, you couldn't teach special ed. 961

[D'Anconia]

Less than two hours ago, you said you were done. Why are you still responding to him? 962

[cochrane]

Originally Posted by D'Anconia

Less than two hours ago, you said you were done. Why are you still responding to him?

Why the fuck do you care? Or are you doing your usual threadshit thing? 963

[TroutMan]

Originally Posted by wolfpup

...I cite this as only one representative example, but it applies to most of your pontifications, the general commonality being that the reason things that are "obvious" to you are not obvious to knowledgeable experts is that most of the time you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Sammy's problem (well, one of many) is that he seems incapable of thinking about anything beyond a surficial level. He is fond of saying he thought about something for a couple minutes and the solution is perfectly clear, and that lack of deep thought is obvious.

Hmmm, some gas doesn't trap heat in the atmosphere? Perfect, just use that to solve global waming! But no thought to other impacts to things like to hydrological cycle, or how to determine the correct dosage.

Someone built a cableway up a mountain somewhere? Perfect, we can just do the same thing on any mountain. But no thought to how Everest is different from the other place. Brain synapses are electric signals? No problem, we can just write code to mimic them.

And with no additional thought, of course his solutions seem simple to him, and anyone who can't see them must be a moron. He is incapable of considering that maybe everyone else has thought more than one level deep. 964

[D'Anconia]

Originally Posted by cochrane

Why the fuck do you care? Or are you doing your usual threadshit thing?

I just like it when people keep their word. Sorry if that offends you in some way. 965

[running coach]

Originally Posted by D'Anconia

I just like it when people keep their word. Sorry if that offends you in some way.

We like it when you keep your word.








To yourself. 966

[SamuelA]

Originally Posted by TroutMan

Sammy's problem (well, one of many) is that he seems incapable of thinking about anything beyond a surficial level. He is fond of saying he thought about something for a couple minutes and the solution is perfectly clear, and that lack of deep thought is obvious.

Hmmm, some gas doesn't trap heat in the atmosphere? Perfect, just use that to solve global waming! But no thought to other impacts to things like to hydrological cycle, or how to determine the correct dosage.

Someone built a cableway up a mountain somewhere? Perfect, we can just do the same thing on any mountain. But no thought to how Everest is different from the other place. Brain synapses are electric signals? No problem, we can just write code to mimic them.

And with no additional thought, of course his solutions seem simple to him, and anyone who can't see them must be a moron. He is incapable of considering that maybe everyone else has thought more than one level deep.

But... I don't say this about every problem. Just ones where this approach seems to be valid. With insolation integrating satellites you can determine the effect of SRM and as for the dosage, obviously insolation levels pre CO2 increases are safe.

Similarly, Everest is factually the same as the other mountains, just higher and harder to access with present infrastructure. So it's a completely reasonable conclusion to say if you can negate the effects of high altitude and build a way to get the tons of equipment in you can solve this problem expensively.

I don't agree that every problem has a straightforward solution. Most problems don't...

And the people arguing with me generally are the ones being more superficial. If you said "well what you didn't know is, the mountains near Everest are festooned with seismic faults", I would listen. That would be an example of actually participating in a discussion. Of you notice, the people arguing will just say "oh it's impossible" with minimal or not justification.

Or speaking of superficial, wolfpup clearly hasn't researched climate mitigation in any serious way. He just claims falsely that IPCC dismisses it and stops thinking about it. 967

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by running coach

We like it when you keep your word.








To yourself.

And thus, for the two hundred forty-second consecutive week, the meeting of the D'Anconia Fan Club was adjourned due to lack of quorum. 968

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip

And thus, for the two hundred forty-second consecutive week, the meeting of the D'Anconia Fan Club was adjourned due to lack of quorum.

And thus we establish that the attendance of a single halfwit does NOT constitute a quorum for an organization of one. 969

[Manda JO]

Originally Posted by SamuelA

Go back to teaching high school or whatever you do. Though I think you're a shitty teacher, you couldn't teach special ed.

Jesus Christ. That's fucking insulting. Teaching students with learning disabilities takes incredible skill and craft and training.

Do you actually think "special ed teacher" is an insult? Do you think SpEd is inferior teachers teaching inferior kids? 970

[running coach]

Originally Posted by Manda JO

Jesus Christ. That's fucking insulting. Teaching students with learning disabilities takes incredible skill and craft and training.

Do you actually think "special ed teacher" is an insult? Do you think SpEd is inferior teachers teaching inferior kids?

It was where he was in SpEd. 971

[erysichthon]

Originally Posted by SamuelA

Go to hell, idiot.

You sound a bit tense. Maybe it's time for another "dating trip" to Eastern Europe? 972

[wolfpup]

Originally Posted by Manda JO

Jesus Christ. That's fucking insulting. Teaching students with learning disabilities takes incredible skill and craft and training.

Do you actually think "special ed teacher" is an insult? Do you think SpEd is inferior teachers teaching inferior kids?

Indeed. But you're obviously not an aficionado of SamuelA, because this is a classic example of his absolute utter cluelessness. If you want to teach kids with learning disabilities, then according to Sammy's brilliant reasoning it stands to reason that you need to have a teacher with teaching disabilities! This is just how Sammy thinks. Trust him, he's "done the math", and this will optimize the optimization of the learning curve, or something. Sammy has figured this out, and anyone who can't see it is an idiot. You can trust him when he tells you it's inevitable that in the future all special needs kids will be taught by stupid teachers!

I suppose it's also possible he thinks that kids with special needs are worthless. Considering his racist and sociopathic beliefs that were commented on here, that would be consistent with the rest of his reprehensible and ignorant bullshit.

This is actually the intellectual equivalent -- in terms of sheer cluelessness -- to Sammy's solution to the world's climate problem that he so wonderfully articulated in post #952, wherein Sammy proposes "a thin layer of cheap gas", and this magic gas will magically block sunlight, because it's "the opposite of a heating gas" (Sammy's own words). Sammy thus demonstrates a laughable abject ignorance of how greenhouse gases actually work and the basic principles of radiative transfer involved, just for starters. But trust him, because he's "smart" and this is an "obvious" idea that is "certain to happen" (Sammy's own words again), even though it doesn't even make any fucking sense!

Just as a technical side note, even the most crackpot ideas for climate engineering always involve either CO2 sequestration -- which does theoretically make sense -- or some type of forced albedo changes on the surface or upper atmosphere. It's the atmospheric albedo engineering that the IPCC so adamantly rejected, as I previously noted -- Sammy's actual idea is just blithering nonsense. But these other ideas have all been proposed by ordinary scientists who lack Sammy's massive throbbing intellect and at least actually understand how the earth's energy balance model works. Anyway, Sammy has already figured out that scientists are doing science all wrong. The pontificating moron actually has a whole thread about it! 973

[Miller]

Originally Posted by SamuelA

You're a moron. I just looked at the actual fucking IPCC documents...

So, what do you all think Sammy was actually reading when he thought he was looking at the IPCC documents?

I'm guessing "Packet of instant oatmeal." 974

[wolfpup]

Originally Posted by Miller

So, what do you all think Sammy was actually reading when he thought he was looking at the IPCC documents?

I'm guessing "Packet of instant oatmeal."

The time difference between that post and Sammy's previous one, where he clearly had not even seen the IPCC document in question, was a whole nine minutes! Since the pertinent WG3 document is nearly 1500 pages, either Sammy is a VERY fast reader or he was reading something else, maybe "Why Does it Rain? Dick and Jane Learn about the Weather" -- and I'm guessing he didn't understand it. 975

[TokyoBayer]

Originally Posted by Manda JO

Jesus Christ. That's fucking insulting. Teaching students with learning disabilities takes incredible skill and craft and training.



Do you actually think "special ed teacher" is an insult? Do you think SpEd is inferior teachers teaching inferior kids?

Now I’m teaching and sometimes have children with various disabilities/ issues my hat is off to SpEd teachers. It’s less challenging to teach 28 regular kindergarten kids in one classroom than have certain SpEd students. 976

[SamuelA]

Originally Posted by wolfpup

I suppose it's also possible he thinks that kids with special needs are worthless. Considering his racist and sociopathic beliefs that were commented on here, that would be consistent with the rest of his reprehensible and ignorant bullshit.

This is actually the intellectual equivalent -- in terms of sheer cluelessness -- to Sammy's solution to the world's climate problem that he so wonderfully articulated in post #952, wherein Sammy proposes "a thin layer of cheap gas", and this magic gas will magically block sunlight, because it's "the opposite of a heating gas" (Sammy's own words). Sammy thus demonstrates a laughable abject ignorance of how greenhouse gases actually work and the basic principles of radiative transfer involved, just for starters.
Just as a technical side note, even the most crackpot ideas for climate engineering always involve either CO2 sequestration -- which does theoretically make sense -- or some type of forced albedo changes on the surface or upper atmosphere. It's the atmospheric albedo engineering that the IPCC so adamantly rejected, as I previously noted -- Sammy's actual idea is just blithering nonsense.

You no longer are even making me mad enough to reply with much energy, other than to simply quote the above statements as examples of incoherent ranting.

It is intellectually dishonest for you to try to claim that humans with severely diminished mental capacity are equal in worth to functional humans. This is lip service and an incoherent belief that society doesn't even hold. (instant counterexample: felons. Humans are not all equally probable to become criminals...)

So I'm not sure what crowd you are trying to score points with by calling such an attitude "reprehensible".

As for an aerosol in the upper atmosphere blocking sunlight and thus greenhouse effect heating, I am not sure what you are ranting about. Sulfur dioxide injections are a cheap gas and one you could say has a negative global warming potential. I stand by my statement as it makes perfect sense to any reasonable adult as written.

Originally Posted by erysichthon

You sound a bit tense. Maybe it's time for another "dating trip" to Eastern Europe?

That sounds like it will do the trick. Too bad I'm busy preparing for my FAANG interviews.

Originally Posted by Manda JO

Jesus Christ. That's fucking insulting. Teaching students with learning disabilities takes incredible skill and craft and training.

Do you actually think "special ed teacher" is an insult? Do you think SpEd is inferior teachers teaching inferior kids?

Correct. 977

[JohnT]

Well, just because yours was ineffectual, doesn't mean they all are. 978

[raventhief]

Originally Posted by Manda JO

Jesus Christ. That's fucking insulting. Teaching students with learning disabilities takes incredible skill and craft and training.

Do you actually think "special ed teacher" is an insult? Do you think SpEd is inferior teachers teaching inferior kids?

Jesus fucking Christ. What a fucking asshole. 979

[SamuelA]

Originally Posted by raventhief

Jesus fucking Christ. What a fucking asshole.

I try. 980

[nelliebly]

Originally Posted by Manda JO

Jesus Christ. That's fucking insulting. Teaching students with learning disabilities takes incredible skill and craft and training.

Do you actually think "special ed teacher" is an insult? Do you think SpEd is inferior teachers teaching inferior kids?

Thank you, Manda JO. He directed that gem at me. I started to respond in a similar vein as you did (though perhaps not as
well) but decided a) he's not going to recognize his own ignorance and b) he's especially unlikely to change it if a woman is making the argument:

Similarly, feminists want to be treated like a man...except, you know, for having to work a dangerous job like a man, face the military draft like a man, or face the criminal justice system as a man.

And, uh, they [women] voluntarily avoid most of the dangerous jobs they aren't being blocked from entering. You know, truck driving and oil rigs and logging and so on.

981

[Monty]

Originally Posted by TokyoBayer

Now I’m teaching and sometimes have children with various disabilities/ issues my hat is off to SpEd teachers. It’s less challenging to teach 28 regular kindergarten kids in one classroom than have certain SpEd students.

I completely agree with you. Every year for the last fourteen years, I've had a few students who have various learning disabilites (my sister-in-law, an actual special education teacher, has been known to use the expression "learning condition") and, owing to the nature of the schools where I have worked and now work, there is absolutely no way those students will be placed in a special-education class. Teaching certain of those "non-mainstream" students while also teaching the "mainstream" students has been an incredible challenge. Being even a halfway decent spec-ed is quite an accomplishment alone; being a good spec-ed teacher is downright heroic. 982

[SamuelA]

Originally Posted by nelliebly

Thank you, Manda JO. He directed that gem at me. I started to respond in a similar vein as you did (though perhaps not as
well) but decided a) he's not going to recognize his own ignorance and b) he's especially unlikely to change it if a woman is making the argument:

I was particularly proud of that turn of phrase. "..like a man x3". Point stands. If you want me to"recognize ignorance" you need to make an argument. But you can't.

Because you would somehow have to make a reasoned argument as to the inherent value of educating the mentally disabled (I mean people flat out broken, not just a little glitchy) and also show me how it takes high intelligence to accomplish.

Pretty uphill battle. Looks unwinnable. 983

[Monty]

Originally Posted by Monty

Being even a halfway decent spec-ed is quite an accomplishment alone; being a good spec-ed teacher is downright heroic.

Hah! I left out a key word. The correct rendition of this sentence is:

Being even a halfway decent spec-ed teacher is quite an accomplishment alone; being a good spec-ed teacher is downright heroic.

984

[wolfpup]

Originally Posted by SamuelA

As for an aerosol in the upper atmosphere blocking sunlight and thus greenhouse effect heating, I am not sure what you are ranting about. Sulfur dioxide injections are a cheap gas and one you could say has a negative global warming potential. I stand by my statement as it makes perfect sense to any reasonable adult as written.

I'm going to reverse the chronological order of the quotes to deal with the simpler one first.

SamuelA, you really are a fucking moron with absolutely zero understanding of anything related to climate, or anything else, as far as I can tell. An "aerosol" and a "gas" are two different things, and you were claiming some magic gas (a "thin layer" of it, no less) as a magic solution to this problem. SO2 in itself, like any gas, including GHGs, can only absorb and re-emit radiation in different parts of the spectrum, a fact that you still fail to understand, because you don't understand anything about the stuff you're pontificating about, as usual.

But SO2 is able to combine with atmospheric water vapor to form particulates of H2S04 -- sulphuric acid droplets. Which leads to a whole entirely different scenario, and not a pleasant one. This is specifically the albedo factor I was referring to, and these particulates do in fact increase albedo because now you have actual reflective particles of liquid (not a "magic gas") in the atmosphere, and which also has all the negative impacts I previously mentioned. It's not a magic gas that creates the albedo effect, it's the shit that it creates in the atmosphere, in this case, the impact of sulphuric acid raining down on us. I've personally witnessed vast expanses of pristeen lakes in some of the most beautiful parts of northern Canada that should have been thriving with life, that were completely dead. Vast beautiful lakes completely devoid of life. Buildings, streets, bridges, and other infrastructures were crumbling under the assault of acid rain. Only in recent years with the elimination of this polluting scourge have fish and wildlife started to return. The elimination of acid rain was the most successful environmental program in the history of the EPA. It was, in fact, the most successful environmental program ever achieved in history.

So for once we actually got together as a civilization and fixed a major problem, and your brilliant "solution" is to intentionally bring it all back again! Bring back acid rain in greater quantities than ever. And if we ever decide to stop it, say because all our lakes and rivers and forests are dying again, then the earth's temperature would rebound to an extent that it would kill us all.

You truly are a fucking ignorant moron.

Originally Posted by SamuelA

It is intellectually dishonest for you to try to claim that humans with severely diminished mental capacity are equal in worth to functional humans. This is lip service and an incoherent belief that society doesn't even hold. (instant counterexample: felons. Humans are not all equally probable to become criminals...)

So I'm not sure what crowd you are trying to score points with by calling such an attitude "reprehensible".

I'll add to the above quote that there was also a question (post #977), "Do you think SpEd is inferior teachers teaching inferior kids?", to which SamuelA responded, "Correct".

Listen to me carefully, SamuelA, because I'm not joking or just trying to be insulting. Your utter lack of empathy is truly pathological, as are the suggestions of racism and sociopathy that you've also demonstrated. You should constructively interpret the feedback in this thread as an attempt to be helpful, not as a frivolous put-down. I suspect -- though I don't know for sure -- that you have high-functioning autism, and you certainly exhibit significant symptoms of it. People with this condition have been very successful in many fields, but they have to face it and deal with it properly. This is not going to turn out well for you in the real world that we all have to live in if you continue on in this way. I sincerely do not mean that as an insult.

You have the potential to be a contributing member of society but you need professional help to deal with your issues. Your complete absence of empathy is a serious red-flag indicator that goes far beyond just arrogance and simple immaturity. I don't personally have the patience to repeat this multiple times. If you continue to engage here, expect the consequences to continue to be the same. You're not going to get any special treatment from me or, from the looks of it, from anyone else here, because it's not the purpose of this board to provide therapy. 985

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by raventhief

Jesus fucking Christ. What a fucking asshole.

Originally Posted by SamuelA

I try.

Try? Hell, Sammy, it's the only thing you're good at. Really, give yourself full credit. We do. 986

[SamuelA]

[QUOTE=wolfpup;21692011]
But SO2 is able to combine with atmospheric water vapor to form particulates of H2S04 -- sulphuric acid droplets. Which leads to a whole entirely different scenario, and not a pleasant one. This is specifically the albedo factor I was referring to, and these particulates do in fact increase albedo because now you have actual reflective particles of liquid (not a "magic gas") in the atmosphere, and which also has all the negative impacts I previously mentioned.

not as a frivolous put-down. I suspect -- though I don't know for sure -- that you have high-functioning autism, and you certainly exhibit significant symptoms of it. People with this condition have been very successful in many fields, but they have to face it and deal with it properly. This is not going to turn out well for you in the real world that we all have to live in if you continue on in this way. I sincerely do not mean that as an insult.

You have the potential to be a contributing member of society but you need professional help to deal with your issues.


Gee thanks. Says the guy who wastes tons of time frivolously putting me down. I am doing pretty good right now and am about to interview for a 6 figure job at a FAANG firm tomorrow. Google for the acronym. (this is the real reason I have high credit card debts - I expect a large pay increase within a year if not this week)

Also, "professionals" are unqualified to "help". Frankly getting regular sex has done more for my mental well being in the last year than any shrink.

First of all, sulfur dioxide isn't the only option. Other gasses might do the trick with less bad side effects. Second, chemotherapy is better than death, right?

I mean it's definitely worth considering. Also it can be done unilaterally - any country unhappy with the temperature can inject the sulfur dioxide. While if countries pinkie swear to reduce CO2 emissions, and do it, this raises the price of energy within their borders, making manufacturing move to countries where it is cheaper. Like, uh, right now. 987

[Isosleepy]

Originally Posted by SamuelA

Because you would somehow have to make a reasoned argument as to the inherent value of educating the mentally disabled (I mean people flat out broken, not just a little glitchy) and also show me how it takes high intelligence to accomplish.

Pretty uphill battle. Looks unwinnable.

That argument cannot convincingly be made... to *you*. Because you lack something that most of the rest of us have, something that makes us fully human. You literally cannot understand the argument. For different reasons there are other arguments you have clear trouble tracking, considering and understanding. I used to feel sorry for you. Your life cannot be an easy one, both from what we can see of you, and how what and how you are must affect others around you. But it is finally completely clear to me that feeling sorry for you is like feeling sorry for a fire-hydrant for being pissed on by a dog: it is misplaced as the fire-hydrant isn’t a person. 988

[gdave]

I was a Special Ed student. I literally rode the short bus. I wound up doing OK. I don't think my life has been anything to brag about, but I graduated from high school and a good university with honors, spent two years in a highly selective PhD program (Political Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), served in the U.S. Army Reserves, including two deployments to the Gulf, and achieved the rank of Staff Sergeant and the position of Platoon Sergeant before being honorably discharged, and now own my own home, am gainfully employed, pay taxes, and so forth. Granted, my job isn't as glamorous or highly paid as a "six figure job at a FAANG firm", but it's honest work, productive work that I think contributes to society, and it's also a job I actually currently have, not one I'm going to "interview for tomorrow".

SamuelA, you have expressed a lot of opinions that I think merely reflect ignorance. The fact that you think that calling someone a Special Ed teacher is an insult is just stupid. But the beliefs you've espoused about the "worth" of human beings who have cognitive and behavioral issues...I am not "trying to score points" with any "crowd" when I tell you this. You are a truly loathsome human being.

Oh, and running coach, JohnT, when you apparently tried to turn SamuelA's insults against him by implying he was himself a Special Ed student,

Originally Posted by running coach

It was where he was in SpEd.

Originally Posted by JohnT

Well, just because yours was ineffectual, doesn't mean they all are.

Frankly, that's also fairly loathsome. Calling a homophobe a fag isn't hitting a bigot where it hurts, it's just perpetuating bigotry. Same thing with responding to someone who expresses loathsome ideas about Special Ed students by saying they were in Special Ed. 989

[wolfpup]

Originally Posted by Isosleepy

That argument cannot convincingly be made... to *you*. Because you lack something that most of the rest of us have, something that makes us fully human. You literally cannot understand the argument. For different reasons there are other arguments you have clear trouble tracking, considering and understanding. I used to feel sorry for you. Your life cannot be an easy one, both from what we can see of you, and how what and how you are must affect others around you. But it is finally completely clear to me that feeling sorry for you is like feeling sorry for a fire-hydrant for being pissed on by a dog: it is misplaced as the fire-hydrant isn’t a person.

Yep, you nailed it. I used to have at least a modicum of sympathy for Sammy, thinking of him as just an immature troubled kid with a regrettable tendency to come across as an ignorant blowhard. No longer. I see now that he's an irredeemable goddam sociopath pretty much by his own admission. It should be no surprise that he's also revealed himself to be a shameless liar as this is just another facet of the same pathology. It probably doesn't bother him in the least that he's almost universally despised on this board -- it goes hand-in-hand with the delusion of superiority which is also part of the pathology.

Originally Posted by gdave

I was a Special Ed student. I literally rode the short bus. I wound up doing OK. I don't think my life has been anything to brag about, but I graduated from high school and a good university with honors, spent two years in a highly selective PhD program (Political Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), served in the U.S. Army Reserves, including two deployments to the Gulf, and achieved the rank of Staff Sergeant and the position of Platoon Sergeant before being honorably discharged, and now own my own home, am gainfully employed, pay taxes, and so forth. Granted, my job isn't as glamorous or highly paid as a "six figure job at a FAANG firm", but it's honest work, productive work that I think contributes to society, and it's also a job I actually currently have, not one I'm going to "interview for tomorrow".

Well done, and well said. Keep in mind, though, with regard to SamuelA, that you can't believe anything he says, because as noted above, lying is a recognized part of his pathology, and he's already done it several times just in the recent discussion. In fact persistent lying is one of the recognized traits of antisocial personality disorder in the DSM-5.

Originally Posted by gdave

SamuelA, you have expressed a lot of opinions that I think merely reflect ignorance ... You are a truly loathsome human being.

It took some of us a while to reach the same conclusion. 990

[Darren Garrison]

Originally Posted by wolfpup

Well done, and well said. Keep in mind, though, with regard to SamuelA, that you can't believe anything he says, because as noted above, lying is a recognized part of his pathology, and he's already done it several times just in the recent discussion. In fact persistent lying is one of the recognized traits of antisocial personality disorder in the DSM-5.

It took some of us a while to reach the same conclusion.

Or, to use his terms, he is "flat out broken, not just a little glitchy." 991

[SamuelA]

Originally Posted by wolfpup

Well done, and well said. Keep in mind, though, with regard to SamuelA, that you can't believe anything he says, because as noted above, lying is a recognized part of his pathology, and he's already done it several times just in the recent discussion. In fact persistent lying is one of the recognized traits of antisocial personality disorder in the DSM-5.

It took some of us a while to reach the same conclusion.

Oh no! Ignorant, dishonest assholes call me a liar! People who eventually concede or parrot everything I argue claim I am wrong! What will happen to my self esteem, oh no!

I am despised by random strangers on the internet! Good thing the people who actually know me like me!

I will have you know I don't hate you. I find most of the posters in this thread merely tiresome and I generally regret peeking their ignored messages. Wolfpup has been a source of some amusement until he simply has stopped being coherent, simply writing the most hateful thing he can think of even when it doesn't make any sense. 992

[Morgyn]

I love threads like this. They always tell me who is next to be added to my Ignore list, and Sammy just made the cut.

*Kerplop* 993

[Sunny Daze]

Originally Posted by SamuelA

People who eventually concede or parrot everything I argue claim I am wrong!

You inhabit a different reality. 994

[naita]

Originally Posted by SamuelA

First of all, sulfur dioxide isn't the only option. Other gasses might do the trick with less bad side effects.

_Might_, yes. But it's a big might.

Second, chemotherapy is better than death, right?

If indicated for the specific cancer after extensive controlled research and ordered by an experienced oncologist, yes. But you're the "Natural news" freak recommending apricot kernels, because it seems like if one poison works another should work as well. 995

[naita]

Originally Posted by SamuelA

But... I don't say this about every problem. Just ones where this approach seems to be valid. With insolation integrating satellites you can determine the effect of SRM and as for the dosage, obviously insolation levels pre CO2 increases are safe.

"Seems" to ridiculously shallow analysis. 996

[wolfpup]

Originally Posted by naita

But you're the "Natural news" freak recommending apricot kernels, because it seems like if one poison works another should work as well.

FTR, the analogy with "Natural News" is quite accurate. When serious science has looked at the issue of atmospheric albedo management ("global dimming"), it has invariably concluded that even as a "last-ditch" emergency measure it is poorly understood and very highly fraught with major risks including the real possibility of the attempted cure being much worse than the disease, while potentially not in fact alleviating many (or any) of the principal problems. By "serious science" I mean, among others, the panel of international experts on the IPCC Working Group 3 who most recently produced the AR5 WG3 report in 2014 on mitigation of climate change, and the US National Academy of Sciences report on potential climate interventions published in 2015. The latter largely dealt with CO2 sequestration with some consideration of techniques like stratospheric aerosol injection and marine cloud brightening as a means of atmospheric albedo management.

In contrast, advocacy of such risky and unproven approaches has generally come from crackpots on the fringes of science or outside of it altogether, like the pair of lunatics who wrote "SuperFreakonomics", about which respected reviewers had this to say about the chapter on global warming:

In the book's fifth chapter, the author proposes that the climate system can be intentionally regulated by construction of a stratoshield.

The chapter has been criticized by economists and climate science experts who say it contains numerous misleading statements and discredited arguments. Among the critics are Paul Krugman, Brad DeLong, Raymond Pierrehumbert, The Guardian, Bloomberg News, and The Economist. Elizabeth Kolbert, a science writer for The New Yorker who has written extensively on global warming, contends that "just about everything they [Levitt and Dubner] have to say on the topic is, factually speaking, wrong."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperF...arming_section

So one need hardly guess who our resident genius SamuelA sides with, reflecting once again his uninformed and superficially tenuous grasp of a subject that he nevertheless chooses to pontificate about despite having practically no understanding of it. His conclusion seems to be based on his proven technique of sitting on his couch and thinking about it for five minutes. 997

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by wolfpup

His conclusion seems to be based on his proven technique of sitting on his couch and thinking about it for five minutes.

Thirty seconds, tops.

I am still trying to wrap my head around the notion that covering the earth with sulphur dioxide to fix global climate change is something that sounds sensible to any reasonable person. Or that it can be done by any country that doesn't like the temperature, unilaterally. I'm guessing that Canada or China or Russia might take it amiss if we start sending acid rain their way.

Second, chemotherapy is better than death, right?

Shaving your head with a cheese grater is better than death, too, but I would like some indication that it will work before I start making Parmesan out of my scalp.

Regards,
Shodan 998

[Tripler]

I'd been away for a little while on travel, and hadn't caught up on things. I saw one thing that disturbs me about him. Relating to this exchange and his related mini-meltdown, I want to completely disassociate myself with anything he holds, considers, thinks, or otherwise espouses.

Originally Posted by SamuelA

Oh, quick parting shot. "world renowned experts" are the ones who concluded, from the data, that nuclear fission was possible and achievable. And, through a long series of development steps, made it work, and then later made it work even better.

Whole armadas of these fellas are at Los Alamos and other laboratories and while they haven't been able to make much further progress, they are still employed by the government.

Anyways, individuals with similar pedigrees and demonstrated track records are the ones who say that AI is possible and nanotechnology is possible and so on. They occupy equivalent academic positions, if not higher, than nuclear physicists do, and while many of the engineering problems in the way have yet to be solved, they are generally thought to be solvable.

That's pretty bold statement from someone in neither industry.

Originally Posted by SamuelA

That's what I meant. So you aren't arguing with me, you're arguing with the position of the national nanotechnology initiative, the entire staff at Google Brain, the MIT media lab - those random riffraff and ragheads. What do they know? You're a bomb technician*! You can read circuit diagrams! You can maybe even build your own bomb, if it's not too complicated. What do those people know that you don't? They are just academics...

*and maybe a former military officer though I don't know if your technical knowledge goes to the ability to actually design anything.

At no point in your whataboutism was I arguing with a position of "national nanotechnology initiatives." I was demonstrating your words in one link after a ten second search. I could care less about "nanotechnology inititatives," or any of your half-witted ideas, or self-aggrandizing bloat-posts. I noted your "ragheads" reference. Your racism really classes this discussion up. I don't know you, other than the words on the screen. Your words, and some of your opinions, are filthy, vulgar, and stupid. Your words reflect you. I don't think a filthy, vulgar, stupid person is worthy of attention, let alone hiring.

However, I will not have you put your racist words into my mouth. If you were intending to imply that I have ever held an opinion of that sort, then make your apology and move on.

Tripler
Your homework: make an apology to this thread. 999

[SamuelA]

Originally Posted by Tripler

I'd been away for a little while on travel, and hadn't caught up on things. I saw one thing that disturbs me about him. Relating to this exchange and his related mini-meltdown, I want to completely disassociate myself with anything he holds, considers, thinks, or otherwise espouses.



That's pretty bold statement from someone in neither industry.



At no point in your whataboutism was I arguing with a position of "national nanotechnology initiatives." I was demonstrating your words in one link after a ten second search. I could care less about "nanotechnology inititatives," or any of your half-witted ideas, or self-aggrandizing bloat-posts. I noted your "ragheads" reference. Your racism really classes this discussion up. I don't know you, other than the words on the screen. Your words, and some of your opinions, are filthy, vulgar, and stupid. Your words reflect you. I don't think a filthy, vulgar, stupid person is worthy of attention, let alone hiring.

However, I will not have you put your racist words into my mouth. If you were intending to imply that I have ever held an opinion of that sort, then make your apology and move on.

Tripler
Your homework: make an apology to this thread.

By ragheads I was referring to members of the insurgency in Iraq/Afghanistan and ISIS. Glad to see you are standing up for the worst of the worst. This is generally what military members, which you are allegedly a former member of, mean. They don't generally mean muslims.

As for rifraff, anyone un-credible falls there.

I apologize for implying you would take a side against enemies of the United States and random homeless bums when seeking advice. 1000