Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 02-08-2019, 07:17 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 43,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
You don't impress me with your consistent ability to flap your gums without saying anything. That's a pretty common trait, and just makes you one more bit of detritus lowering the signal/noise ratio in the world, which is exactly what we all need.
Better content-free gum flapping than your regular tide of idiot racist lies.
  #52  
Old 02-08-2019, 07:24 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I don’t shrink from my slacker identity (obviously). But this specific critique is wrongheaded, and frankly clueless. The whole reason podcasts have become such a “thing” is not that people sit down on their couches and listen. Maybe some people do, but I and every podcast listener I know listens to them while working out, driving, cooking, etc. So it’s just the opposite of what you’re imputing to me here. In fact, if I were fabulously wealthy and could REALLY be as lazy as I wanted to because I could hire people to do all drudgery for me, I’d listen to podcasts a lot less—as I’d be more tempted to spend the time reading, posting, watching TV, playing tennis at the indoor club I’d be able to afford to join, etc.
But, here's the thing. We are not working out, we are not driving, we are sitting here, at a computer, right now.

If you were just recommending in general, "Hey, here's an interesting podcast, I think that you guys should listen." that's one thing. There are a few podcasters that I would recommend in that fashion. Even, "here's a podcaster that covers a subject that I find interesting."

But you are telling us that if we want to join in this debate, we need to listen to this podcast. We need to listen to it before we can even know what is that we are debating about, even. And that means stopping what we are doing, finding some headphones, and then listening to a podcast, full of "uh's" and "ums" and pauses. If I missed a bit of what he said, I have to click to go back, and try to find the spot that I left off at, rather than just reading the word again.

If I want to cite him, or ask a question about what he said, then I have to transcribe what he said, rather than just cut and paste.

It's just not conducive to the medium that we are in, and that is why people will not engage you when you make these demands. Whine all you want, and even throw out insults towards people who won't play your game, but, well, they ain't playing your game.
  #53  
Old 02-08-2019, 07:29 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
The whole reason podcasts have become such a “thing” is not that people sit down on their couches and listen. Maybe some people do, but I and every podcast listener I know listens to them while working out, driving, cooking, etc.
Oh, okay - so we should also only be half paying attention to what's being said. Seems like a great idea.

Take it from a fellow person on the spectrum - when everyone in the room gives you a social norm, and repeats it quite angrily, it's usually not worth arguing about it. All that typically does is make everyone angry.
  #54  
Old 02-08-2019, 07:29 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
The many, many Redditors who participate in, for just one of countless examples, the Very Bad Wizards subreddit would presumably tend to disagree. As would those who discuss podcasts on Twitter and Facebook, or on the blogs/sites associated with individual podcasts. Not your cup of tea? That's your prerogative. But to dismiss it as "silly" is presuming to speak for large numbers of people who manage to have perfectly functional discussions of podcast episodes.
So, you’re using a subreddit dedicated to discussing podcasts as evidence that it’s okay to discuss podcasts?

Holy shit, Batman, we have a 26 year old genius on our hands!
  #55  
Old 02-08-2019, 07:50 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,989
BPC, we're hearing disproportionately from people who are not only anti-podcast, but anti-Twitter, anti-meme, anti-YouTube, just anti-any-of-the-weird-shit-people-are-doing-today. If they are the local "social norm", then frankly I don't give a rat's arse about violating their norms. I'll be just a tad more current, regardless of what the curmudgeons here think (which is funny because I don't even have an Instagram account, so I'm really just talking about GenX current, vs. the truly ancient in spirit if not in actual chronological age). I get into fights on Twitter all the time, as one does, but you know what? They are never litigated on the basis of the crap you are talking about here. That shit would trigger a massive snarkstorm, and deservedly so.

All that said, here's Pesca, painstakingly transcribed by me, the slacker in residence. You're welcome :P


Quote:
We are responding to a president who says things we know aren't true by backing a tribune who says things we just wish were true. And we're told we have to be okay with that. Not to be okay is to be churlish, or anti-progressive, or even worse...those old rules of checking to see if her facts are right, those old norms of scrutiny, those are traditions from a different world, a bygone era.[...]

As Shadi Hamid (sp?) of the Brookings Institution wrote about Ocasio-Cortez's proposed 70 percent tax rate in the Atlantic, "It probably doesn't matter whether it would work. To argue that workability is secondary might sound odd to Democrats..." Let me pause this quote by saying yes--or maybe odd to people, to humans who live in the actual world--but go on, sir: "It might sound odd to Democrats, particularly leaders and experts who have long prided themselves on being a party of pragmatic problem-solvers...This, though, could be the most important contribution so far of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the new crop of progressive politicians: the realization that the technical merits of a particular policy are not the most important consideration, or at all relevant."

( I am generally a big fan of the Atlantic, but that is some bullshit right there.)

Pesca gets his ranting pants zipped up, and continues:


Quote:
So what about facts? What about just getting basic facts right? We can all agree that this is a good thing, right? No, we can't. Future Gist guest Eric Levitz argues in New York Magazine that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's critique of factchecking is valid--that is the headline--and he says that "nonpartisan political media does often obscure the moral stakes of policy debates beneath semantical nitpicking."
Pesca then goes on to poke holes in the plausibility of "Green New Deal" numbers, like the one about moving to 100% renewable energy in the U.S., from the current 20%, by 2030. He notes that AOC cites a Stanford study, and that he read the study and these professors are actually advocating 80% by 2030 (still a very ambitious goal), and 100% by 2050 (since, as anyone with a lick of sense knows, this is not a linear process and the last few percent will be much harder). He goes on to point out that the Union of Concerned Scientists has promoted a goal of 80% by 2050.

Pesca snarks, "But AOC wants to get to 100% in nine years, and how are we gonna get there? By dreamin' big!" He then plays an audio clip of AOC embracing the "dream" label as a positive thing, and claiming that all great American programs, "from the Great Society to the New Deal", began with people doing just that: dreaming big. And he quotes AOC as claiming that when JFK said we would go to the moon by the end of the decade, "people said it was impossible". Pesca's retort: "Yeah, some people thought it was impossible--people who thought the Earth was flat. You know who didn't think it was impossible? Scientists!" He cites Werner von Braun as having written a government memo estimating that the U.S. could get to the moon by '67 or '68.

Pesca goes on to do more of that mean ol' nitpicking from there, but you get the, well, gist (heh).
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc

Last edited by SlackerInc; 02-08-2019 at 07:54 PM.
  #56  
Old 02-08-2019, 08:00 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 43,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
BPC, we're hearing disproportionately from people who are not only anti-podcast, but anti-Twitter, anti-meme, anti-YouTube, just anti-any-of-the-weird-shit-people-are-doing-today.
None of that's true. You're just spectacularly incompetent at not only framing a debate, but in participating in one. That's what people are reacting to.

Well, that and you just being a garbage human being in general.
  #57  
Old 02-08-2019, 08:05 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
BPC, we're hearing disproportionately from people who are not only anti-podcast, but anti-Twitter, anti-meme, anti-YouTube, just anti-any-of-the-weird-shit-people-are-doing-today.
Okay, let me try again.

Shut the fuck up, you fucking idiot.
  #58  
Old 02-08-2019, 08:14 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,794
Oh look, a transcript.

Quote:
We are responding to a president who says things we know aren't true by backing a tribune who says things we just wish were true. And we're told we have to be okay with that. Not to be okay is to be churlish, or anti-progressive, or even worse...those old rules of checking to see if her facts are right, those old norms of scrutiny, those are traditions from a different world, a bygone era.[...]

As Shadi Hamid (sp?) of the Brookings Institution wrote about Ocasio-Cortez's proposed 70 percent tax rate in the Atlantic, "It probably doesn't matter whether it would work. To argue that workability is secondary might sound odd to Democrats..." Let me pause this quote by saying yes--or maybe odd to people, to humans who live in the actual world--but go on, sir: "It might sound odd to Democrats, particularly leaders and experts who have long prided themselves on being a party of pragmatic problem-solvers...This, though, could be the most important contribution so far of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the new crop of progressive politicians: the realization that the technical merits of a particular policy are not the most important consideration, or at all relevant."
Thank you for taking the time to type this out.

I am phenomenally glad I did not waste any time listening to this stupid shit. Mockery of an article he didn't fucking understand. Stupid comparisons between AOC and Trump (which I am just personally sick to fucking death of; anyone willing to make them is just too fucking dumb to take seriously at this point). And... not much else?
  #59  
Old 02-08-2019, 08:20 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Thank you for taking the time to type this out.

You're welcome.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #60  
Old 02-08-2019, 08:29 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
BPC, we're hearing disproportionately from people who are not only anti-podcast, but anti-Twitter, anti-meme, anti-YouTube, just anti-any-of-the-weird-shit-people-are-doing-today. If they are the local "social norm", then frankly I don't give a rat's arse about violating their norms.
That is funny, in the sense that I also do listen to podcasts; but, in the past when I pointed at podcasts from experts in the field of genetics, history of science and anthropology that replied to the nonsense that you spewed before; the result was that you just completely ignored everything of what they said.

That is willful ignorance, and it is no different when you use podcasts, twitter, YouTube or anything else, you do fall for ignorant or grossly incomplete arguments.
  #61  
Old 02-08-2019, 08:31 PM
nearwildheaven nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 11,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
I'm an American (although an expatriate) and had no idea what the fuck the OP was talking about either until I figured it out.

Apparently the OP thinks that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez already has the status of FDR, JFK, or LBJ to be immediately recognizable by initials. (This is a knock against the OP, not Rep. Ocasio-Cortez.)
As a liberal woman, I'm sorry to say that there are a LOT of people who feel that way. That's all I'm going to say about it; whether they're right remains to be seen.
  #62  
Old 02-08-2019, 08:34 PM
Guest-starring: Id!'s Avatar
Guest-starring: Id! Guest-starring: Id! is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,633
Good thread so far about dealing with podcasts.

Last edited by Guest-starring: Id!; 02-08-2019 at 08:34 PM.
  #63  
Old 02-08-2019, 09:14 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
All that said, here's Pesca, painstakingly transcribed by me, the slacker in residence. You're welcome :P.
Fuck that’s long. You think I have time to sit around this message board, reading all day long?
  #64  
Old 02-08-2019, 09:15 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 37,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Mike Pesca delivers a nice takedown of AOC’s truthiness schtick in the latest episode of his daily Slate podcast The Gist, starting at 19:30:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...-new-deal.html
You know how journalism was going to "pivot to video" except that nobody wanted to watch the videos?

Let's just say a "pivot to audio" is even less of a draw.
  #65  
Old 02-08-2019, 09:35 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 37,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Do you also refuse to listen to NPR,
I don't 'refuse' to listen to NPR, I just don't listen to it.
Quote:
to watch PBS Newshour segments,
We've never watched enough TV to justify the $$ to pay for cable. All we really do with our TV is watch the occasional movie.
Quote:
or YouTube videos?
Only to listen to music that I don't own.
Quote:
How is this attitude any different from some old git 20 years ago sitting in his armchair, newspaper in hand, muttering “I’m not going to look at a fucking Internet message board”?
Maybe because I was always the fastest reader I knew until I met my wife, but taking in information via the spoken word is just too damn slow.

This was not a problem with blogs or message boards.
Quote:
Seriously, it’s 2019: get with the times.
It's not a problem with Twitter, either. Is Twitter sufficiently 'with the times' for you? I follow a bunch of people on Twitter.

Yeah, it's not Instagram or Snapchat in terms of being 'with the times,' but then podcasts have been around awhile too. They're not exactly cutting-edge these days.
  #66  
Old 02-08-2019, 09:50 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 37,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
All that said, here's Pesca, painstakingly transcribed by me, the slacker in residence. You're welcome :P
What the fuck does he even mean, do we know if a 70% tax rate would work? Why, does he think the 70% tax rate won't work because it's lazy and wants to hang out with its friends all day? Seriously, I can't even rebut him because I have no idea what he's even talking about.

And AOC's critique of fact-checking? Not ready to argue it here, but if you're a newspaper fact-checker, it would be plenty easy to put a thumb on the scales by the relative frequency with which you fact-check different public figures, and whether you're checking their statements about core policies or the latest random story that's hot for a day or two but doesn't mean anything. My recollection is that her argument was similar to that.
  #67  
Old 02-08-2019, 11:51 PM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,289
Thanks for the transcript. I agree with most of what Pesca said in that excerpt. It’s good to “dream big,” but to do so by ignoring reality really is dumb (I’d call it “Trumpesque,” but the overall goals aren’t selfish and wrongheaded, as they always are for Trump).
The comparison (contrast) to the moon race sounds valid to me — JFK’s “...in this decade” was based on difficult but achievable science, not naive platitudes.
I am a liberal, progressive Democrat, and I appreciate some of the energy AOC represents to many well-intentioned folks, but she needs to take a deep breath. Her moment may come yet, but it shouldn’t be now.

Last edited by JKellyMap; 02-08-2019 at 11:54 PM.
  #68  
Old 02-09-2019, 01:20 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKellyMap View Post
The comparison (contrast) to the moon race sounds valid to me — JFK’s “...in this decade” was based on difficult but achievable science, not naive platitudes.
I am a liberal, progressive Democrat, and I appreciate some of the energy AOC represents to many well-intentioned folks, but she needs to take a deep breath. Her moment may come yet, but it shouldn’t be now.
Well, this was noticed years ago, past research points to this issue to be very similar to the moon race, difficult but achievable.

Studies from serious sources show that it is more likely that 1% of the world's GDP what is needed to deal with the issue.

http://www.un.org/dpi/ngosection/ann...hn_Holdren.pdf (PDF file)
Quote:
Economics of climate policy

•The costs of prudent mitigation will not be small, but neither will they be catastrophic.

•Current global CO2emission rate from fossil fuels + deforestation is 9-11 billion tonnes of C per year.

Paying $100/tC to avoid half of it would be $0.5 trillion/year, about 1% of the Global World Product (much of it a transfer, not moneydown a black hole)

•More sophisticated analyses of mitigation costs for stabilizing at 550 ppmv CO2e come out ~1% of GWP (range 0.5-2%) in 2100 (Stern review); mid-range IPCC 2007 estimates are ~0.5% of GWP in 2030.

•Money saved by averting damages is almost certainly far larger than the costs.
-John P. Holdren, Harvard University, Director of the Woods Hole Research Center for the UN 60thAnnual DPI/NGO Meeting, “Climate Change: How It Impacts Us All”

Richard Alley, (Republican scientist BTW) who was cited by that report, used the example of humans deploying water and sewer systems in developed nations to show that the worst costs to control an issue that affects most humans did not materialize, as contrarians of the past and the present assume.

Prince John : And why should the people listen to you? Robin Hood : Because, unlike some other Robin Hoods, I can speak with an English accent.

Because unlike some other OPs I see the need to do transcripts of the important points from a video or podcast:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7bmg65SS20 (4 minute video)
Quote:
It took a considerable investment for all those pipes bringing water to wash with and to take the waste away, the revolution and hygiene involved an extensive infrastructure of toilets and homes sewers underneath our city's water treatment plants today we might call it the Sanitation smart grid.

So how much did all this cost? Not that much if you consider the millions of lives saved with clean water, prevention of diseases like cholera and typhoid; something like 1% of the economy in very round numbers. And that's more or less the estimated cost of switching the world to a sustainable energy system that doesn't dump fossil fuel co2 into the public space.

Cleaning up the cities took decades and even centuries and we're trying to do things a little faster but the revolution in waste management shows that we can do big things to get benefits that none of us would ever walk away from.
  #69  
Old 02-09-2019, 01:40 AM
Chimera Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 24,181
"Listen to this podcast/watch this youtube video/etcetera"

You're showing that you have an insufficient grasp of the issue (ie, you can't actually argue it) and you want everyone else to do the work to get up to speed on something you found interesting and then create and carry the discussion for you. So you don't have to.

Ain't nobody got time for that shit.

I don't need to listen to a podcast to discuss or argue a point on this board if the relevant details are sufficiently offered. In fact, that's how discussion works. When I discuss politics with people, I discuss actual issues, my opinion on them and so forth. I don't say "well, listen to this guy's podcast, then watch this youtube video and we can talk about those". When I discuss anything else with people, I do the same. I don't point people at podcasts or videos (or even articles) to explain how I allegedly think or believe. Frankly, I don't know ANYONE in real life who does this. (If I did, I'd think "Oh holy shit is this guy a dumbfuck".)


If you want to talk about the Green New Deal and how YOU think it is a pipe dream, then for fuck's sake, talk about what specifically YOU think is a pipe dream and why.
__________________
Tentatively and lightly dipping my toes back in the water.
  #70  
Old 02-09-2019, 02:14 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKellyMap View Post
Thanks for the transcript. I agree with most of what Pesca said in that excerpt. It’s good to “dream big,” but to do so by ignoring reality really is dumb (I’d call it “Trumpesque,” but the overall goals aren’t selfish and wrongheaded, as they always are for Trump).

You’re welcome; and yeah, that’s a good point, that it’s unfair to call it “Trumpesque” when it doesn’t come from that kind of twisted, malignant place.

But I think the part of it that does relate to Trump is that some Democrats are starting to say “if he doesn’t bother to be truthful or follow established norms of behavior, why should we toe the line?” And I think that’s a big mistake. Even if we do it with “good intentions”, we can’t afford to fritter away a crucial distinction. We need to be better, lead by example. If we point at Trump’s lies and the right can just fire back “well, what about all the truth YOU stretch?” it’s not going to fly to say “well, yeah, but the difference is that we’re good and you’re bad.” We need to be the evidence-based party.
  #71  
Old 02-09-2019, 02:22 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
You’re welcome; and yeah, that’s a good point, that it’s unfair to call it “Trumpesque” when it doesn’t come from that kind of twisted, malignant place.

But I think the part of it that does relate to Trump is that some Democrats are starting to say “if he doesn’t bother to be truthful or follow established norms of behavior, why should we toe the line?” And I think that’s a big mistake. Even if we do it with “good intentions”, we can’t afford to fritter away a crucial distinction. We need to be better, lead by example. If we point at Trump’s lies and the right can just fire back “well, what about all the truth YOU stretch?” it’s not going to fly to say “well, yeah, but the difference is that we’re good and you’re bad.” We need to be the evidence-based party.
Too bad that you ignore evidence to also claim that.
  #72  
Old 02-09-2019, 02:40 AM
Ale Ale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 5,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
This Green New Deal is pretty much exactly what we would have to do to prevent the damage that's coming due to global warming -- according to the latest studies we need to cut emissions to half of 2010 levels in the next 10 years to stop it.

That's definitely possible. In fact, it's EASY - invest heavily in nuclear energy in the short term while transitioning to renewable power. It's also very expensive and politically unfeasible, so the ecology of Earth is beyond screwed.

It's not all doom and gloom though. Global warming won't kill us, or the planet. It WILL cause trillions of dollars in damage over the next century, take many human lives, and destroy the ecosystems we know and love. Apparently, none of that is worth a damn to the people who make decisions in this country, but it is what it is.
AFAIK this "Green Deal" wants to get rid of nuclear power, so it's exactly what shouldn't be done to mitigate global warming.

From what I've seen it's a complete shambles... which may be the reason why the topic has been hijacked into discussing other things.
  #73  
Old 02-09-2019, 02:48 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ale View Post
AFAIK this "Green Deal" wants to get rid of nuclear power, so it's exactly what shouldn't be done to mitigate global warming.

From what I've seen it's a complete shambles... which may be the reason why the topic has been hijacked into discussing other things.
Thing is that even the ones that worked in the nuclear industry have noticed the problems they have when they see what is going on regarding solar power advances.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2.../#65146a9bd440
Quote:
Answer by Mehran Moalem, PhD, UC Berkeley, Professor, Expert on Nuclear Materials and Nuclear Fuel Cycle, on Quora:

I have taught courses in Nuclear Engineering and a few seminar courses in alternative energies. I also worked for two years starting up six solar factories around the globe. In spite of my personal like for nuclear engineering, I have to admit it is hard to argue for it. Here is the simplified math behind it.

The total world energy usage (coal+oil+hydroelectric+nuclear+renewable) in 2015 was 13,000 Million Ton Oil Equivalent (13,000 MTOE) - see World Energy Consumption & Stats. This translates to 17.3 Terawatts continuous power during the year.

Now, if we cover an area of the Earth 335 kilometers by 335 kilometers with solar panels, even with moderate efficiencies achievable easily today, it will provide more than 17,4 TW power. This area is 43,000 square miles. The Great Saharan Desert in Africa is 3.6 million square miles and is prime for solar power (more than twelve hours per day). That means 1.2% of the Sahara desert is sufficient to cover all of the energy needs of the world in solar energy.

There is no way coal, oil, wind, geothermal or nuclear can compete with this. The cost of the project will be about five trillion dollars, one time cost at today's prices without any economy of scale savings. That is less than the bail out cost of banks by Obama in the last recession. Easier to imagine the cost is 1/4 of US national debt, and equal to 10% of world one year GDP. So this cost is rather small compared to other spending in the world. There is no future in other energy forms.

In twenty to thirty years solar will replace everything. There will still be need for liquid fuels but likely it will be hydrogen produced by the electrolysis of water and that powered by solar. Then tankers and pipelines will haul that hydrogen around the world. One can also envision zirconium or titanium batteries that store large quantities of hydrogen.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 02-09-2019 at 02:49 AM.
  #74  
Old 02-09-2019, 03:42 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,989
Uhhh...the “bail out cost of banks” was zero. Less than zero, in fact. And it was not “by Obama”, but by Bush.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 02-09-2019 at 03:43 AM.
  #75  
Old 02-09-2019, 03:59 AM
DMC DMC is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Would you settle for, "She's called AOC everywhere on this very message board?"
To be fair, and since the first post you referenced was mine, all of those threads mentioned her by name before tossing out the initials. This is also true of the articles referenced earlier.
  #76  
Old 02-09-2019, 04:33 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Uhhh...the “bail out cost of banks” was zero. Less than zero, in fact. And it was not “by Obama”, but by Bush.
Sounds a lot like complaining about the asides but not the substance. If that was important to notice, then one needs to point out that Mike Pesca is more experienced in sports, not science. (Seems that you forgot about that bit about what sources to take more seriously). But at least Mike does acknowledge that the issue is a serious one.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...-possible.html
Quote:
If things had gone well, America would still be in the Paris Agreement on climate change, green energy would be spreading across the country and Al Gore wouldn’t have needed to make a sequel to An Inconvenient Truth. But it didn’t work out that way. With his new movie hitting theaters next week, Gore remains hopeful during these depressing times. “If somebody told me five years ago, marriage equality would be the law in all 50 states, I would have asked what they were smoking,” says the former vice president. “But it did happen, because it became a choice between right and wrong. That’s where the climate movement is now.”
Now, I have noticed other podcasts where Mike interviews scientists like Andrea Schumacher, that do worry about the increase in extreme weather events that we are likely to get in a warming world. So the only issue I can have with him is that his blind spot is to ignore the costs that we are likely to get by not dealing with the issue in a more serious way, he thinks that on this issue Ocasio Cortez is exaggerating or being ignorant like Trump and the Republicans. Not even close.
  #77  
Old 02-09-2019, 05:28 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,989
You are getting more than just Mike Pesca there. He has a staff, and they seem like highly competent radio people. It is slickly produced without seeming self consciously so. Plus of course he has the backing of Slate more broadly.
  #78  
Old 02-09-2019, 05:47 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 35,695
I'm going to assume for the sake of argument assume this is a plan that can't happen, and is destined to fail.

She's doing exactly what she needs to do to pull in the base of disaffected voters. You have to understand that a lot of the reason that I find that young people won't vote is because they say no one is actually pushing for the things they believe in. Everyone is just the same.

The Dems have a huge messaging problem in this area. Even though we are actually working to improve in these areas, we don't make a big flashy thing about it that people can see, and we do it so incrementally you can't see the big picture.

AOC* is a Dem who gets that passing bills isn't all you do. You have to try and motivate people. That's what Obama was good at, too. There's a reason why the GOP will occasionally try to push a bill that has no chance of passing. It at least tells people "Yes, we still care about this, but they won't let it happen."

It's also a rather useful technique to make the big ask and then compromise to the smaller ask. Another problem Dems often have is that they start from the compromise position. No, in a negotiation, you start from a position far higher than what you want.

That said, there is the risk of being seen as ridiculous. The question is, does her constituency see it as ridiculous? Or only her opponents? There's a difference between ridiculous and not possible. It could be impossible but an ideal.


*She's called that, I believe, because the typical shortening to a last name would be Ocasio-Cortez, which isn't much more convenient than many politicians' full names. Normally I balk at the nicknames (like I say "Sanders," not "Bernie," as much as possible), but this one is just too convenient.
  #79  
Old 02-09-2019, 06:31 AM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,289
I agree with your overall point, Big T, but I still think one can be accurate AND inspirational. Like Obama often was.

That little (but important) misrepresentation of the science report bothers me. She could stick to “80% by 2030, 100% by 2050” and still be totally inspirational, (as long as she presented with a few more specifics about how to achieve it.) No need to change the facts. Doing so undermines your argument, period.

IMHO, Ocasio-Cortez needs to spend at least a few months (!) absorbing the climate science, AND the culture and workings of Congress. Then she’ll have a better grasp of how to inspire people. Reach for the stars, sure, but only after you’re more fluent in the art of the possible.

Last edited by JKellyMap; 02-09-2019 at 06:33 AM.
  #80  
Old 02-09-2019, 09:22 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 35,695
I'll agree with the science part. I'm not so sure about the culture of Congress. I mean, she seems more there to upset that than to maintain it. Though, still, it would be useful to understand that which you wish to upend.

I just don't want her becoming like the others--at least, the others who keep on telling her she's messing everything up. I do expect her to figure out what does and doesn't work.

Last edited by BigT; 02-09-2019 at 09:22 AM.
  #81  
Old 02-09-2019, 10:00 AM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,289
Fair enough.
  #82  
Old 02-09-2019, 10:19 AM
Gatopescado's Avatar
Gatopescado Gatopescado is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: on your last raw nerve
Posts: 21,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Fuck that’s long. You think I have time to sit around this message board, reading all day long?
Spit-take!
  #83  
Old 02-09-2019, 10:31 AM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,526
You know what would be totally awful? If we undertake her Green Agenda, start putting money and intelligence to work on it, and it happens? And we enter a new age of cheap, abundant and green energy?

And then it turns out we were wrong, that it wasn't really necessary! What a disaster, huh? Could go back, I suppose, resume dumping shit into our rivers and poison into our air. But by then, the investing class will be invested in Green, rather than Exxon, and are likely to resist! And there we'll be, surrounded by healthy grandchildren with actual futures, and no way to get back to the Age of Shit! Alas! Woe is us!

Take solar energy, for instance! We start leaching energy from the sun, how long before it runs out! Fucking hippies, never think about stuff like that!
  #84  
Old 02-09-2019, 11:07 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
You are getting more than just Mike Pesca there. He has a staff, and they seem like highly competent radio people. It is slickly produced without seeming self consciously so. Plus of course he has the backing of Slate more broadly.
That is ok, but missing the point that you (not Mike) did the equivalent in that post of dismissing an expert for using some hyperbole (that does not change the numbers) and not being able to dismiss his main subject or issue, it was like dismissing planetary mechanics just because Velikowski found some bits that Astronomers and Cosmologists got seemingly wrong early on.
  #85  
Old 02-09-2019, 11:10 AM
dba Fred dba Fred is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
<clipped>
I'm not saying you're wrong to not know of the term AOC, but personally I can't swing a dead cat on this board without hitting the initials.
Pics of you swinging a dead cat or it didn’t happen.

I didn’t listen to the podcast, is part of the Green New Deal swinging dead cats, windmill-style, as a source of renewable energy/to replace fossil fuels ?
  #86  
Old 02-09-2019, 12:49 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,407
I have mixed feelings about AOC. I am delighted that she is inspiring young progressives! OTOH, I wish she did better fact-checking.

But to be credible, any criticism of AOC should be accompanied with a disclaimer like "Of course every single Republican is a despicable liar who knows far less about our problems and their solutions than this young lady." Who was it, the Republican Chairman of the Science Committee who pompously brought a glass of ice water to a hearing as proof that ice melting doesn't raise ocean levels?

American voters are low-information and it reflects very badly on the detractors of this young ex-bartender to focus on minutiae instead of the lying scum from the Kleptocrat Party who are gleefully stealing trillions and laughing at Democrats tripping over their own feet.

On the other matter:
(1) I often watch YouTubes at faster-than-normal speed. And sometimes the visual that goes with the audio is useful. (It may even help with the focus needed to follow at high speed.)
(2) A worthy podcast should have a transcript.
(3) I access 'Net on my laptop, not in my car. There are good reasons I wouldn't listen to a podcast in my car even if that were convenient.
(4) The suggestion to watch a podcast is reminiscent of Sam Stone's request years ago that we listen to several hours of Milton Friedman YouTubes before he would deign to discuss with us.
(5) Kimstu touched on some of the flaws of the podcast suggestion in his post that begins:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
If we want to discuss the SOTU as political theater, complete with audience reactions, clothing choices, etc., then of course we have to watch it or at least clips of it in order to be able to talk about it intelligently....
  #87  
Old 02-09-2019, 01:12 PM
Guest-starring: Id!'s Avatar
Guest-starring: Id! Guest-starring: Id! is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by dba Fred View Post
Pics of you swinging a dead cat or it didn’t happen.

I didn’t listen to the podcast, is part of the Green New Deal swinging dead cats, windmill-style, as a source of renewable energy/to replace fossil fuels ?
Fucking leave Tibbles out of this.
  #88  
Old 02-09-2019, 02:28 PM
Jas09 Jas09 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 5,671
In case anybody cares, early polling of the Green New Deal is pretty damn positive: https://thehill.com/policy/energy-en...green-new-deal
  #89  
Old 02-09-2019, 02:50 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I have mixed feelings about AOC. I am delighted that she is inspiring young progressives! OTOH, I wish she did better fact-checking.

But to be credible, any criticism of AOC should be accompanied with a disclaimer like "Of course every single Republican is a despicable liar who knows far less about our problems and their solutions than this young lady." Who was it, the Republican Chairman of the Science Committee who pompously brought a glass of ice water to a hearing as proof that ice melting doesn't raise ocean levels?

American voters are low-information and it reflects very badly on the detractors of this young ex-bartender to focus on minutiae instead of the lying scum from the Kleptocrat Party who are gleefully stealing trillions and laughing at Democrats tripping over their own feet.
I have seen AOC make a number of missteps and mention some inaccuracies.

What I have not seen her do, when confronted with a mistake or inaccuracy, is to double down on it. It seems that, she is young, and she has much to learn, but she seems willing to learn it.
  #90  
Old 02-09-2019, 04:54 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,989
So let's take BigT's claim as a given: that AOC's overstatements and inaccuracies do more good politically in the short term than the harm they do by undermining Democrats' credibility with swing voters in swing states (who are still very powerful in a hyperpartisan era, due to how closely divided the country is). I don't necessarily believe that, but let's assume it's true for the sake of argument.

What happens to those idealistic voters when ten years have passed and Democrats have not fulfilled their pie-in-the-sky promises? Don't we end up worse off than before, with the next generation being even more disillusioned? I just don't think this is a sustainable political path.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #91  
Old 02-09-2019, 05:33 PM
Chimera Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 24,181
If nothing else happens, having a member of congress with a large audience calling for this kind of thing shifts the Overton Window, which has been flying to the right this last decade or so because of the sheer mass of right wing demagoguery.
__________________
Tentatively and lightly dipping my toes back in the water.
  #92  
Old 02-09-2019, 06:12 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,989
I didn't transcribe it, but the podcast segment also includes some snark and silliness from Pesca about the Overton Window.

I don't believe we should play fast and loose with the facts to move that "window". We need to make our brand the one that doesn't use "truthiness".
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #93  
Old 02-09-2019, 06:18 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
So let's take BigT's claim as a given: that AOC's overstatements and inaccuracies do more good politically in the short term than the harm they do by undermining Democrats' credibility with swing voters in swing states (who are still very powerful in a hyperpartisan era, due to how closely divided the country is). I don't necessarily believe that, but let's assume it's true for the sake of argument.

What happens to those idealistic voters when ten years have passed and Democrats have not fulfilled their pie-in-the-sky promises? Don't we end up worse off than before, with the next generation being even more disillusioned? I just don't think this is a sustainable political path.
You must not be aware of the issue at hand in full, we will all lose. Not just Democrats. The Republicans will get still more of the blame since it is clear that they will drag solutions as long as possible thanks to being beholden to fossil fuel companies and holding the idiot ball. Historically speaking, it will be like when the Republicans stuck with prohibition solutions way beyond their expatriation date.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 02-09-2019 at 06:20 PM.
  #94  
Old 02-09-2019, 06:37 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimera View Post
If nothing else happens, having a member of congress with a large audience calling for this kind of thing shifts the Overton Window, which has been flying to the right this last decade or so because of the sheer mass of right wing demagoguery.
Of course, to be a bit of a stickler, I have to point out here that this is not an issue that should depend on partisanship, how it became a partizan issue in weaponized form was reported By Frontline back in 2012:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/f...mate-of-doubt/
Quote:
JOHN HOCKENBERRY: [voice-over] This is what they fear, what happened in 2010 to six-term South Carolina Congressman Bob Inglis, a Republican who once thought he was a safe incumbent in his solidly red state.

BOB INGLIS (R), Fmr. Congressman, South Carolina: You know, I'm pretty conservative fellow. I got a 93 American Conservative Union rating, 100 percent Christian Coalition, 100 percent National Right to Life, A with the NRA, zero with the ADA, Americans for Democratic Action, a liberal group, and 23 by some mistake with the AFL-CIO. I demand a recount. I wanted a zero.

JOHN HOCKENBERRY: But Inglis does accept the scientific consensus on global warming and favors legislation to curb the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere. He faced a Tea Party rebellion in his primary.

BOB INGLIS: I had a big tent gathering in Spartanberg County, a bunch of Republicans underneath a great big tent. Comes a question to me, "Yes or no, do you believe in human causation on climate change?" Well, I had a bad habit of answering questions, so I said yes. Boo, hiss, comes the crowd. I was blasted out from underneath the tent. And so— I mean, there were a couple of hundred, 300 people there. I mean, it was intense.

JOHN HOCKENBERRY: He was pounded in commercials and on talk radio.

BOB INGLIS: It became an oft-repeated theme on talk radio, and that is a major source of information, of course, for Republican primary voters. They were hearing, "Inglis has left the reservation. He's over there somewhere with Al Gore."

So how are things around here?

STORE OWNER: Slow. The economy's way off and—

BOB INGLIS: When you get the financial collapse going, that's what made it possible for some well-spent money to blow doubt into the science because, you know, the bankers failed us, the federal government is failing us, it's spending too much money, and these scientists who are funded by that federal government, they're probably in it, too. And besides, they're godless liberals.

JOHN HOCKENBERRY: Inglis was defeated.

MYRON EBELL, Competitive Enterprise Institute: Bob Inglis was defeated in a Republican primary 79 to 21 percent. Now, how many times has an incumbent who isn't in prison or facing a prison sentence lost his own primary by 79 to 21 percent? This was overwhelming. But what's happened is—

JOHN HOCKENBERRY: [on camera] The smile on your face suggests, "Man, we won one."

MYRON EBELL: Of course we won one!

Rep. BOB INGLIS: We're on the record. And our grandchildren, our great-grandchildren are going to read—

JOHN HOCKENBERRY: This climate hearing in the lame duck Congress was Inglis's last.

Rep. BOB INGLIS: Your child is sick, 98 doctors say treat him this way, two say, "No, this other is the way to go." I'll go with the two. You're taking a big risk with those kids.

Rep. JAMES SENSENBRENNER: That was a very key factor in 10 to 15 congressional districts in the 2010 election, where strong supporters of climate change legislation ended up being defeated.

Sen. JOHN KERRY: And there's nothing like a loss in an election to promote fear in the survivors. And that's exactly what happened in the United States Congress.
The Democrats winning the House was one important piece to start countering the fall into ignorance.

And sorry for the ones that complain about videos, but that documentary is needed to be seen (or read the transcript) by the ones that are not aware of how corporations and interest groups discredited even business solutions to the issue like cap-n-trade, and led groups like the tea party into twisting the GOP into a willful ignorant party. And how the GOP became and remains the weakest link for many of the solutions that are being proposed.
  #95  
Old 02-10-2019, 12:57 AM
Leaper Leaper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In my own little world...
Posts: 12,532
Anyway, her voters obviously knew about her beliefs when they voted for her, so she’s saying exactly what they want to hear. That’s being a politician!
  #96  
Old 02-10-2019, 10:52 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
You must not be aware of the issue at hand in full, we will all lose. Not just Democrats. The Republicans will get still more of the blame since it is clear that they will drag solutions as long as possible thanks to being beholden to fossil fuel companies and holding the idiot ball. Historically speaking, it will be like when the Republicans stuck with prohibition solutions way beyond their expatriation date.
Darn the auto fill, that is not supposed to be expatriation, but expiration date.
  #97  
Old 02-10-2019, 10:53 AM
Ukulele Ike Ukulele Ike is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 16,426
Ah, shit. I just called her “AOC” over in the “Trump Twitter” thread.

Also, maybe it’s time to change the title of THIS thread, because only about 10% of the posts have been about the Green New Deal.
__________________
Uke
  #98  
Old 02-10-2019, 11:45 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ukulele Ike View Post
Ah, shit. I just called her “AOC” over in the “Trump Twitter” thread.

Also, maybe it’s time to change the title of THIS thread, because only about 10% of the posts have been about the Green New Deal.

...he says, after 7 consecutive posts on GND.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #99  
Old 02-10-2019, 04:01 PM
Dale Sams Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jas09 View Post
In case anybody cares, early polling of the Green New Deal is pretty damn positive: https://thehill.com/policy/energy-en...green-new-deal
December 17? Thats pretty early all right.
  #100  
Old 02-10-2019, 04:06 PM
Dale Sams Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatopescado View Post
I just don't like the word 'podcast'. Very tinny.

And my internet is shit.
I'll get you a nice speaker for your birthday great-granda. if you can stay alive that long sheeesh,

I kid i kid. Just snarking. I dont know you.

Last edited by Dale Sams; 02-10-2019 at 04:06 PM.
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 06:22 PM.

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