We need to put some serious research money into developing new fallacies. Seeing the same ones pop up again and again in every thread is just getting boring. It's like people aren't trying any more.The trouble is, basic scientific research isn't usually directly profitable to whoever funds it (it is only profitable to the engineer who makes use of the research a couple decades down the road). That's why the pure sciences are more commonly funded by governments (who aren't interested in directly profiting) than by corporations (who are more likely to fund the engineering projects to increase their profits).
Funding for research of new fallacies might need to come from the government. Which, as we all know, would make it socialist propaganda. The Job Creators are perfectly content profiting off of the old fallacies (like 'socialist propaganda'). Sure, maybe they'd like to utilize new fallacies, but only if someone else pays for the development.
You just managed to sum up one of the the major argument against anarchocapitalism :D
Just checking in, has anyone won the thread?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just checking in, has anyone won the thread?
I think we are looking into forming an International Panel of Experts to consider both sides of the "win conspiracy". But first we need to have a committee to review the currently available evidence to see whether we can pre-bunk the predicted outcome lest debate get caught up in a pointless round of de-bunking and, in some extreme cases, re-bunking.
And trust me, it is humanity who loses when things degenerate into re-bunking of the debunking, particularly where the bunkified issue should clearly have just been pre-bunked..
[
On the other hand, our descendants and the slight lessening of the Sun's mass may move our planet a bit further away. Given enough time, we could probably extend our planet's viability by gradually moving it away from the Sun by using slingshot mechanics.
Only having a billion years left means that we're probably this planets last chance at getting off this rock.
I'm not quite sure I understand. Correction: I'm very sure that went completely over my head. I'm pretty sure that the Earth itself is completely indifferent to it's own fate, much less our own.Only having a billion years left means that we're probably this planets last chance at getting off this rock.[
On the other hand, our descendants and the slight lessening of the Sun's mass may move our planet a bit further away. Given enough time, we could probably extend our planet's viability by gradually moving it away from the Sun by using slingshot mechanics.
If we die out, the chances of the raccoons taking over and developing space flight in a billion years are pretty low.
Well, look at the stuff that was outright impossible a thousand or even 200 years ago. We got to the moon. We sent a machine to mars. We're having this conversation.
There;'s solar systems only a few light years away. Thats reachable with cryo sleep, or heck, even slowing/stopping the aging process. Advancements that make space travel possible aren't always just for space travel.
Well, look at the stuff that was outright impossible a thousand or even 200 years ago. We got to the moon. We sent a machine to mars. We're having this conversation.
There;'s solar systems only a few light years away. Thats reachable with cryo sleep, or heck, even slowing/stopping the aging process. Advancements that make space travel possible aren't always just for space travel.
We can push on the limits of reality. We can't exceed them. No matter how well we train and condition ourselves, we can't breathe vacuum. And our bodies can't tolerate extended conditions of microgravity. Hard exercise can slow down but not prevent muscular atrophy, nor bone mass loss.
Our technology can extend the limits of the possible. It can't ignore however, the boundaries of the impossible.
The bone loss thing sounds very possible. All you need to do is alter someone's dna so that the bones don't do that anymore.
You don't just alter the environment to suit us, you can alter us to suit the environment
Well, look at the stuff that was outright impossible a thousand or even 200 years ago. We got to the moon. We sent a machine to mars. We're having this conversation.
There;'s solar systems only a few light years away. Thats reachable with cryo sleep, or heck, even slowing/stopping the aging process. Advancements that make space travel possible aren't always just for space travel.
We can push on the limits of reality. We can't exceed them. No matter how well we train and condition ourselves, we can't breathe vacuum. And our bodies can't tolerate extended conditions of microgravity. Hard exercise can slow down but not prevent muscular atrophy, nor bone mass loss.
Our technology can extend the limits of the possible. It can't ignore however, the boundaries of the impossible.
The bone loss thing sounds very possible. All you need to do is alter someone's dna so that the bones don't do that anymore.
You don't just alter the environment to suit us, you can alter us to suit the environment
Unfortunately BNW, LazarX is a neo-luddite and a bio-conservative near as I can tell. I doubt you'll get anywhere with that argument.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Our technology can extend the limits of the possible. It can't ignore however, the boundaries of the impossible.
Which... we don't know. Indeed, your belief that preventing muscular atrophy and bone mass loss in space is among "the boundaries of the impossible" is looking fairly shaky. The ARED (Advanced Resistive Exercise Device) aboard the ISS has already been shown to significantly reduce these problems, and they are now studying the effects of different exercises plus drug and dietary treatments to keep pushing the 'viable zero-g' time further and further out. Prior to the ISS long term studies with multiple participants like this weren't possible. Now that they are, we are finding ways to deal with the issue... and that's just with existing technologies. As others have noted, some of the emergent technologies could make the entire problem obsolete.
We are reaching the point where genetic modification will be a viable technology... and by the time we hit the 'limits' of that our new ability to study sub-atomic particles (Higgs boson, Weyl fermion, et cetera) will have opened up new areas of scientific advancement that we can't even conceive of currently. The 'boundaries of the impossible' are still a long long distance away.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Our technology can extend the limits of the possible. It can't ignore however, the boundaries of the impossible.
That would almost be insightful if we had any idea where the "boundaries of the impossible were." So far, our best guess about those limits is "way the hell beyond what we have."
I assume you're familiar with Clarke's Third Law? Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic? I'd like to draw your attention to his lesser-known, but equally important First Law.
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
In the specific case of countermeasures to the effects of zero-g in long-term space flight.... goodness, just rotate the damn craft. Pseudogravity due to centripetal acceleration is something that a) is obvious, and b) has never even been tested. Let's find out if the answer is something we already know how to do but haven't had a chance to test before we declare that it's "impossible."
|
|
As all of you are going back and forth about this, I find that anything I say would never convince anyone else about the futility of this issue.
Man - Made "global warming" is a myth. Pure and simple.
Now, with that statement out of the way, lets review what is around.
Weather.
We are essentially talking about the weather. Patterns of seasons and temperatures, jet streams and sun spots.
The overall "fact" that the global temperature has actually cooled by a fraction of a degree (Celsius? or Farinhiets?) seems to be either ignored or discounted. The Email controversy has poked a serious hole in any discussion about "Man Made" climates and put the issue further into a joke status. (Search for late night monologues about this)
So, for the sake of weather, there are those that want to rid us of evil black, icky oil and modern conveniences in favor of intermittent technologies and old wind mills.
Hurricane Katrina changed a lot of the weather pattern ten years ago, warping the Jet Stream as it made New Orleans into a giant swimming pool. Anyone forget that the tragedy could have been lessened if the levies would have been built to spec to be able to divert water around the city? Those were not built because it would have impacted some tree frog or cricket or something, so it was made into a worse situation because of the very same type of folks that wring their hands and pout about "global Warming" and how man is causing it.
In the political world, we have other issues that need our time and resources, such as repealing the Affordable Healthcare Act, securing our border and affirming the enforcement of our laws regarding illegal immigration and restructuring the tax code.
This issue is really small compared to what we need to do in our country (USA) to get back to being a successful and vibrant economy once again.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Man - Made "global warming" is a myth. Pure and simple.
Are you asserting that human's can't alter the climate?
Hurricane Katrina changed a lot of the weather pattern ten years ago, warping the Jet Stream as it made New Orleans into a giant swimming pool. Anyone forget that the tragedy could have been lessened if the levies would have been built to spec to be able to divert water around the city? Those were not built because it would have impacted some tree frog or cricket or something, so it was made into a worse situation because of the very same type of folks that wring their hands and pout about "global Warming" and how man is causing it.
Cause then you go on to assert that human's have altered the climate.
I'm confused.
Yeah, ^ that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Arsenic is a healthy snack, pure and simple.
You can defy gravity with a superman cape, pure and simple.
Pepsi is the best cola, pure and simple.
Adding the words "pure and simple" to a statement increases its truthiness. It does not make an argument for them.
The overall "fact" that the global temperature has actually cooled by a fraction of a degree (Celsius? or Farinhiets?) seems to be either ignored or discounted.
Or is something else you've made up. Citation please.
The Email controversy has poked a serious hole in any discussion about "Man Made" climates and put the issue further into a joke status.
The only thing that has reached joke status is this argument.
Point to something in the emails that actually does this. You cannot just angrily hand wave at "Climate gate!" and say that it shows that Anthropogenic Climate Change is a hoax because people, comedians at that, have angrily said that Anthropogenic Climate Change is a joke.
Hurricane Katrina changed a lot of the weather pattern ten years ago, warping the Jet Stream as it made New Orleans into a giant swimming pool. Anyone forget that the tragedy could have been lessened if the levies would have been built to spec to be able to divert water around the city? Those were not built because it would have impacted some tree frog or cricket or something, so it was made into a worse situation because of the very same type of folks that wring their hands and pout about "global Warming" and how man is causing it.
Citation needed. The levies suffered from poor construction and lack of funding. What you're talking about sounds awfully expensive.
thaX do you accept that co2 is opaque to infrared radiation?
Climate denier lawyer who's been hassling scientists was on Alpha coal company's payroll together with various right-wing think-tanks.
Surprised?
Climate denier lawyer who's been hassling scientists was on Alpha coal company's payroll together with various right-wing think-tanks.
Surprised?
Not even a little bit.
|
On one hand it is lack of understanding of the basic sciences in this country. Something that must be fixed.
On the other hand the growing amount of faked or otherwise blatant lies that are being published as actual studies is unforgivable and likewise contribute to a basic distrust among certain subsets in the sciences. This too must be repaired.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
On one hand it is lack of understanding of the basic sciences in this country. Something that must be fixed.
On the other hand the growing amount of faked or otherwise blatant lies that are being published as actual studies is unforgivable and likewise contribute to a basic distrust among certain subsets in the sciences. This too must be repaired.
It wouldn't matter one whit. You can make all the impossibly high standards for studies you want. When those studies say something people don't like you'll still get the exact same amount of grarg and counter factual arguments that make up the vast majority of denier claims.
The idea that the key to winning this is better evidence has worse than no evidence.
|
|
On one hand it is lack of understanding of the basic sciences in this country. Something that must be fixed.
On the other hand the growing amount of faked or otherwise blatant lies that are being published as actual studies is unforgivable and likewise contribute to a basic distrust among certain subsets in the sciences. This too must be repaired.
It wouldn't matter one whit. You can make all the impossibly high standards for studies you want. When those studies say something people don't like you'll still get the exact same amount of grarg and counter factual arguments that make up the vast majority of denier claims.
The idea that the key to winning this is better evidence has worse than no evidence.
Better evidence, in some cases, not saying climate science, there needs to be any evidence. There was a published paper on ESP evidence. One that had no way in hell of being duplicated. Just calling something science does not in fact make it science. See creationism for example.
|
|
Climate denier lawyer who's been hassling scientists was on Alpha coal company's payroll together with various right-wing think-tanks.
Noteworthy aside... this came to light because Alpha, one of the largest coal companies in the US, is filing for bankruptcy. It is one of several coal companies to fold in the past few years. Peabody Energy, the largest private coal company in the world, is still hanging on, but has seen its stock price decline 98%, into 'penny stock' territory... and all of that is before the new EPA regulations on coal pollution have even gone into effect.
The anti-reality brigade complains of a 'War on Coal', but the truth is that coal has already surrendered before the first shot was even fired. Natural gas, wind, and solar power now all cost less than coal in the US. New coal power generation has dropped to zero in the US and even some existing plants are shutting down early because they are costing more money than they earn. Coal is dying because it can't compete... yet right wing politicians (and some coal state Democrats) continue to push for ever greater tax-payer subsidies to prop up coal.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because it isn't a fact. If you check the graph it will have it's rises and dips, but when you look at the overall curve of averages, each year, including this one is still hotter than the one preceding it.
The overall "fact" that the global temperature has actually cooled by a fraction of a degree (Celsius? or Farinhiets?) seems to be either ignored or discounted. The Email controversy has poked a serious hole in any discussion about "Man Made" climates and put the issue further into a joke status. (Search for late night monologues about this)
It's a 'fact' if you dishonestly/ignorantly take a single year which was abnormally high and use that as the starting point for your comparison. You can even see how abnormal that year looks in the graphs on LazarX's link. This isn't unknown. It's a common dishonest denialist tactic. So common that it's already been addressed in this very thread.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As all of you are going back and forth about this, I find that anything I say would never convince anyone else about the futility of this issue.
That may well be correct. But you might consider going further and asking yourself WHY anything that you say is unconvincing.....
The answer, simply enough, is that nothing that you say on the subject of climate science is convincing, because nearly everything you say is false. And not merely false, but transparently and obviously so. In many cases, you're dragging up falsities that are not only well-document on the web, but well-documented on this very thread.
So you're in the position of someone claiming that "Berlin is the capital of China, pure and simple," and wondering why the people you're speaking to -- many of whom have been to Berlin, many of whom have been to China, and all of whom are capable of Googling "capital of China" -- will remain forever unconvinced.
For example, your oft-refuted claim that "global temperature has actually cooled by a fraction of a degree" is patently false to anyone who bothers to look at the graph. Your claim about "the Email controversy" ignores the fact that eight separate and independent investigations found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. Your claim that Hurricane Katrina affected the global climate literally reverses cause and effect.
Given that none of that information would persuade any rational observer, it's fairly transparent why you're having issues convincing people.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When you look at something as large as overall climate change, you don't single out a single day, month, or year, it's the average trends which tell the tale, and the average is going UP. For every step it takes back, it's moving 2-3 forward.I am kind of curious as to the source of the "Katrina affected the global climate" claim. That one's out there, even by denier standards.
At least I can look at the temperature claim and see that it was true, if you pick the right starting years and play a few tricks with averages, though it's getting harder with every passing record year.
BTW LazarX, each year isn't hotter than the one preceding it. There are ups and downs, even in the 5 year average, but the overall trend is definitely up. 2014 was a record and 2015 is on track to be another, though that could change. 2013 wasn't as hot as 2010 though and 2011 isn't in the top 10.
Granted. But that makes the phrasing you chose doubly unfortunate. Not only was it wrong, but also irrelevant.... And you know why.
|
|
For those of you who don't agree, I'm not sure what can politely be said.
The fact is it is getting hotter.
How hot, and how fast is heating up can still be argued on.
Just not the fact that it is warmer.
Honestly the evidence is mounted that our society is the culprit.
The question really comes to this, what do we do about it?
Aren't you mixing people up now? It was ThaX that saidGranted. But that makes the phrasing you chose doubly unfortunate. Not only was it wrong, but also irrelevant.... And you know why.When you look at something as large as overall climate change, you don't single out a single day, month, or year, it's the average trends which tell the tale, and the average is going UP. For every step it takes back, it's moving 2-3 forward.I am kind of curious as to the source of the "Katrina affected the global climate" claim. That one's out there, even by denier standards.
At least I can look at the temperature claim and see that it was true, if you pick the right starting years and play a few tricks with averages, though it's getting harder with every passing record year.
BTW LazarX, each year isn't hotter than the one preceding it. There are ups and downs, even in the 5 year average, but the overall trend is definitely up. 2014 was a record and 2015 is on track to be another, though that could change. 2013 wasn't as hot as 2010 though and 2011 isn't in the top 10.
Hurricane Katrina changed a lot of the weather pattern ten years ago,, LazarX said
Hurricane Katrina did not change our weather patterns. Hurricane Katrina, and storms like Sandy are THE RESULT of our changing weather patterns.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just a reminder, scientists can now directly measure how much CO2 is impacting temperature.
I think the importance of this fact has been overlooked.
So, if we have all this temperature rise, and nuclear energy doesn't emit CO2, why is the environmental lobby against nuclear power? Aren't we at the point where we need to grasp every single straw available to us? Considering that we could extend the fissile cycle extremely far into the future through the use of breed reactors. It just seems extremely counterintuitive, is all.
Even so, there is a marked difference. Nuclear has the capacity to replace coal. Solar and wind do not, whether you or anyone like it or not. Also, the environmental lobby has been a major reason we do not have more nuclear power, so "it takes time to build nuclear plants" is a pretty useless argument, no? And the other problems, well, the waste can be reused if you build the breed reactors, and the risks could be well mitigated if you ACTUALLY STOPPED RELYING ON TECHNOLOGY FROM THE SEVENTIES!!!
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, if we have all this temperature rise, and nuclear energy doesn't emit CO2, why is the environmental lobby against nuclear power? Aren't we at the point where we need to grasp every single straw available to us? Considering that we could extend the fissile cycle extremely far into the future through the use of breed reactors. It just seems extremely counterintuitive, is all.Because it has other problems. Because it's even slower to build up nuclear capacity than wind or solar, especially if you're taking the precautions needed to mitigate the other problems. Because "the environmental lobby" isn't a single unified thing.
Yup. Plenty of 'environmentalists' / people concerned about global warming ARE for nuclear power. James Hansen for instance.
However, that doesn't change the fact the nuclear power costs more and takes longer to deploy than any other major method of power generation. Plus high public opposition (across the political spectrum), limited resources, waste disposal problems, and potential nuclear proliferation... lack of progress on nuclear doesn't really seem counter-intuitive at all.
As to breeder reactors... these aren't even close to economically viable. They're lab experiments which might one day be useful, but currently would cost more money than they could ever make. Ditto fusion reactors. Might as well ask why we don't 'just' cover the light side of the Moon in solar panels and beam all the energy down. Maybe some day... but not happening with current technology/economics.
Even so, there is a marked difference. Nuclear has the capacity to replace coal. Solar and wind do not, whether you or anyone like it or not.
Simply false. Either solar or wind could replace ALL of our energy use (not just coal) many times over... and the total cost would be lower.
I find it odd that breed reactors are discounted because of economic reasons when the point is to make more fissile materials, to make the fissile materials we do have give us more energy, not make money. It is also relevant to point out that the environmental lobby has quite a serious price tag written out for the stuff they want us all to pay to save the environment. You are free to explain this, CBDunkerson, of course.
I would also be fascinated to see the calculations for wind or solar replacing ALL our energy needs.
I suppose I would count as part of the environmental lobby, having worked in water quality in the past and with a lot of family and friends working on air quality and air pollution epidemiology.
Coal has killed or sickened far more people than nuclear power ever managed.
Even when nuclear power is mismanaged, Fukushimas and Chernobyls still don't come close to matching the epidemiological burden of coal.
I do think that it's an issue that a lot of new nuclear construction is occuring in countries with doubtful safety records. Even with seventies tech, reactor safety is, practically speaking, not a major threat in the US. On the other hand, I suspect that reactor safety may prove a major threat in China and India with 2015 tech. The seismic activity in those regions is not a plus either.
Sweden has had a ban on developing new nuclear technology for ages, only recently removed, instated by the environmental lobby. We have shut down our decently modern plants, instead... OPTING TO BUY NUCLEAR POWER ELECTRICITY FROM HORROR STORY PLANTS IN THE FORMER EASTERN BLOC! AND OF COURSE, COAL ELECTICITY FROM GERMANY!!! YAAAAAY!!!
I would also be fascinated to see the calculations for wind or solar replacing ALL our energy needs.
Here's a result from some quick poking around.
So, if we have all this temperature rise, and nuclear energy doesn't emit CO2, why is the environmental lobby against nuclear power?
Well, just because one choice is bad doesn't mean another, competing, choice isn't even worse. This is a classic "false dichotomy" argument.
Personally, I agree that nuclear power is underused and a much better choice than public opinion has it. But you have to admit that when nukes go wrong, they go really wrong, and the media have done a very good job of pointing this out.
All right! NOW we're cooking! We just need ninety-nine times the wind turbines we have today! And according to the article, the majority will be in places like the Gobi and Sahara deserts, necessitating power lines that make the TAPI pipeline look like a geopolitical hug party. I dunno. This calculation looks a lot like the completely correct claim that solar power could give us ALL the energy we could ever need. Oh, yes. All we would have to do is build a Dyson sphere to catch it all.
So, if we have all this temperature rise, and nuclear energy doesn't emit CO2, why is the environmental lobby against nuclear power?Well, just because one choice is bad doesn't mean another, competing, choice isn't even worse. This is a classic "false dichotomy" argument.
Personally, I agree that nuclear power is underused and a much better choice than public opinion has it. But you have to admit that when nukes go wrong, they go really wrong, and the media have done a very good job of pointing this out.
We are not talking about nukes, but nuclear power plants. There is a difference. And besides, no nukes ever have "gone wrong". They did what they were supposed to do just as their owning government intended.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it odd that breed reactors are discounted because of economic reasons when the point is to make more fissile materials, to make the fissile materials we do have give us more energy, not make money.
So... you're suggesting we dump capitalism in favor of socialism? If not, who precisely do you imagine is going to pay to build power plants that don't make money?
I would also be fascinated to see the calculations for wind or solar replacing ALL our energy needs.
Seriously? It isn't even close;
Human energy consumption = ~160,000 terawatt-hours per year
Incoming solar radiation = ~174,000 terawatt-hours per hour
Total wind power capacity = ~600,000,000 terawatt-hours per year
We are not talking about nukes, but nuclear power plants.So, if we have all this temperature rise, and nuclear energy doesn't emit CO2, why is the environmental lobby against nuclear power?Well, just because one choice is bad doesn't mean another, competing, choice isn't even worse. This is a classic "false dichotomy" argument.
Personally, I agree that nuclear power is underused and a much better choice than public opinion has it. But you have to admit that when nukes go wrong, they go really wrong, and the media have done a very good job of pointing this out.
That's right. Nuclear power plants are also "nukes," colloquially. Hell, so are microwave ovens.
This calculation looks a lot like the completely correct claim that solar power could give us ALL the energy we could ever need. Oh, yes. All we would have to do is build a Dyson sphere to catch it all.
That's a substantial exaggeration.
In full sun, you can safely assume about 100 watts of solar energy per square foot. If you assume 12 hours of sun per day, this equates to 438,000 watt-hours per square foot per year. Based on 27,878,400 square feet per square mile, sunlight bestows a whopping 12.2 trillion watt-hours per square mile per year.
12.2 terawatts-hours per year per square mile. So a patch of ground 120 miles by 120 miles would, if paved in solar panels, cover human energy consumption.
Impractical? Perhaps, but nowhere near Dyson sphere levels.