Science is now cancelled? [USERS NOW BANNED FOR POLITICS]

[Bikeman315]

I have a better idea..... Lets set them up in front of Brothels and the EV owner could amuse themselves while the car charged assuming of course the technology had advanced to the point a car could be charged in 30 seconds.........

And the technology has advanced to a point where the owner could be charged for more than 30 seconds.

Sponsored

 

[Burkey]

Hello; OK so the same response as before with regard to the question of why we should have confidence now when spokes people for the movement in the past got things so wrong about the climate. Only an ________ would question modern science.

Apologies for the lengthy reply but there’s a lot of ground to cover here:

The simple answer is that you should never have been listening to the “spokespeople“ in the first place unless they are reporting that which is agreed by the scientific community at large.
If oceans are rising at a rate of approximately 3mm per year during a certain period at a certain location, and the spokesperson says 2mm, ok, that’s within reason. If they’re saying 20mm, it’s not.
Theres a certain amount of simplification that MUST take place when trying to explain any of these concepts to the broader public, so it makes sense that from time to time, there might be a slight variation in “the truth”.
If they tried to explain every subtle nuance in science-speak we’d either fall asleep or become confused. Probably both.
Would you really like to listen to a dissertation that reports the average ocean-level rise by geographic region and time-frame or would you prefer the more generalised version?
I‘m quite sure that a qualified oceanographer of reasonable merit could bore you to tears with details.
Same goes for astrophysicists, biologists etc etc


As to only an ........ would question modern science......

How well qualified do you feel you might be to challenge the findings of quantum physics?
Any particular areas of science, outside of climatology where you feel that you might be able to provide some insight?
It’s always interesting to me that people only really take issue with the areas of science that don’t fit their preconceived ideas.

You won’t find large-scale PUBLIC denial of atomic theory, theory of gravity, cell theory etc etc. I‘m quite sure that rigorous debate is taking place in those fields, but none of it is coming from lay-people and if it is, it needs to be substantiated with EVIDENCE, not opinions.

There most certainly IS a debate they should be taking place in the field of climatology. However, to debate that CO2 can’t warm the planet or that humans aren’t causing the current rise in C02 isn’t among the debates that are viable. These concepts can be easily proven to anyone who understands the basics. That debate is already done and dusted in the scientific community.
Again, if you have an alternative theory, go for it. Provide the evidence that supports it.

The debate that should be (and is) taking place within the scientific community is with regard to the implications of the changes we‘re seeing and the accuracy of the predictions. They aren’t arguing over whether oceans will rise or not but rather the RATES at which it will occur and in what regions.
They‘re debating (based on evidence) how the various species are likely to react to the changes. These are viable debates.

If we look at the IPCC, we soon see that there is a raging debate as to which papers are used or discarded in formulating the IPCC’s assessments.
Frequently the IPCC has been criticised by climatologists for being too conservative in their selection of peer-reviewed papers. At other times they’ve been accused of being too optimistic,
In many instances both have proven to be the case, but it depends on which areas you’re looking at specifically.
How exactly would you go about precisely predicting atmospheric CO2 concentrations 20 years from now when you already know that governments are changing policies that surround “acceptable” levels?

Hello; I have been thinking of an analogy for this climate issue. I knew a Doctor who continued to smoke after some lobes of his lung were removed. I get comparing an addictive thing such as tobacco to climate has serious flaws. Perhaps the way to look at it is that to his mind the damage was already done. That it was too late to stop smoking and turn things around in terms of his health. Again I admit a poor comparison.
The thing I see as comparable is that it seems much too late to do much good. Lots of reasons even a drastic change in lifestyles will not make much of a difference at all. To me it is the sheer number of people alive being a big driver. If billions of people do reduce pollution , there will still be lots of impact simply because of the numbers.
Saw a report a while back that food production relies on artificial fertilizers and other such modern farming methods to the tune of feeding two billion people. That means if we somehow did not have the factory made fertilizers and such along with the big machinery, there could not be enough food produced by old school methods. It was not clear to me if the transport side of getting food to people was included, but I do not think it was.

My best guess at this point is there will not be a way to replace the farm machinery, big rig trucks, trains, barges and ocean going ships in the next ten years or so. All these things run on fossil fuel currently. On top of this it keeps being mentioned that other countries around the world do not have the capacity nor the inclination to join in the "green new deal" sort of movement being pushed onto us in my country.
I guess we could be the brite shinning example for the rest of the world in the eyes of the "true believers". We could set the example for other to follow sort of thing. We could damage our economy and such just to set the example. There is a catch I think.

The military of the USA for example has been cite d as the greatest user of fossil fuels ever. I am not seeing much about this in the stuff about going to the EV's and doing away with ICE. I guess the military could have some EV's in their inventory, but I question just how much.
I read books and from books about military operations I have seen a particular practice. Jets which land on aircraft carriers will sometimes dump thousands of pounds of fuel into the air before landing on the deck of the carrier. I do get it. It is so very much safer to have less of the fuel on the plane at landing. Then there is the normal use of fuel in regular operations. Somehow I do not see or hear much from the "green" spokes people about this.
I can imagine being stalled on the side of the road with a dead EV and watching a military convoy roll past. But I have too much imagination I guess.

Without going too deep into it, the fallacy you’re buying into seems to be this idea that we need to reduce carbon emissions to zero.
That is simply NOT the case.
Carbon “neutral” and carbon “zero” aren’t synonymous.

You can in fact go forth and emit a shit-tonne of carbon dioxide IF you neutralise it through the methods that are suggested (I’m drastically simplifying it because I honestly can’t be arsed with doing the nuances).
The trick being the METHOD/S of neutralising it and the rates of expulsion etc etc,

This is why they talk about “carbon neutral“ rather than “zero carbon“. Again, if people understood what it’s all about, they may not hold the objections they do.
There again, they might object. That’s entirely up to the individual.
That is genuine freedom of choice.
When we fail to grasp the premise, we aren’t free to choose.
That is why education matters.
People are far more likely to accept laws when they understand WHY that law exists. It’s no guarantee of course, but without any fundamental understanding, they will often feel that the laws are unjust, and therefore disregard them.

 

[CJJon]

And the technology has advanced to a point where the owner could be charged for more than 30 seconds.

I don't get it? Is that some sort of vitamin?

 

[sk47]

Hello; I will briefly touch on carbon neutral. I do not know all there is to know and have not looked into it very much.
I get the impression this may be something like the carbon "credit" plans of the past. Maybe carbon offsets. These were plans where by a company could keep on emitting carbon if they somehow offset the emissions with an approved way to do so. They might still have emissions but will plant trees to offset.
I may be shaky on this one but seem to recall that the auto companies were able to do such an offset by buying up old cars and taking them off the road. For every old more polluting vehicle they turned in they got a "credit". Things was people were pulling vehicles out of fields which had not been running for years and never would again.

There are some new methods of carbon capture being tested. This may be a better approach in the sense of actually sequestering carbon in some way. Saw a film on a method where they can push the carbon into deep rock layers. A sort of artificial limestone I guess.
These methods are small scale, at least the ones I have seen, and will be expensive to scale up to significant levels. A way to deal but these will likely have a cost.

I do pay attention to the new technologies. Back a few years ago a small company had an idea to make a liquid battery. The idea was to have the part which carries the charge be a liquid which could be drained out of a vehicle. Then refill with a fully charged liquid and you would be on your way. Then the old liquid batter would be recharged and made ready for the next customer. I never saw any more about that idea the last several years.

 

[Chef jpd]

 

[CJJon]

Dude, give it a rest already. We all get your point of view. Sigh...

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Dude, give it a rest already. We all get your point of view. Sigh...

Yeah, why is he the only one who sounds like a broken record (millennials, look it up)?

 

[sk47]

Your diet is killing the planet—here’s how (msn.com)

Hello; Here we go, a listing of food we eat that affect the planet. Even climate is mentioned by name. I knew I had hear of this.

 

[sk47]

Hello; I quit smoking around 1978 or 79. Not because of the environment at the time, but for the sake of my own health. I do get your point and do not dispute it.

However when I made the comment in my post I was not thinking of the several posts you had been making about tobacco and filters. I was trying to come up with an analogy for how I figure it is too late to do much about what ever portion of climate change humans have been a part of. The effects are baked in for the next 50 to 100 years no matter what we may do from now on. Much like the effects of smoking for many decades have baked in the health damage from tobacco so that when some tobacco related disease shows up it is usually too late to quit and make a difference.
I know a number of long term smokers. At least two have lost teeth due to the habit. One wound up with emphysemia (sp) and died a slow horrible death which took right at two years. He would use his nebulizer for several minutes and then smoke., then hit the nebulizer again. The medications used to help him breathe damaged his bones and his spine began to press on his nerves. He was in agony while he drowned in his own body fluids.

I learned that you are wasting energy trying to get a tobacco addict to quit if they do not wish to. Had a friend who kind of wanted to quit but never quite could. He even walked thru a blizzard one cold night when you could not drive to get a pack.

I never thought about the environments impact of smoking. I do not dispute what you say but a true addict will not care. I need to find a different way to make my point that it is too late to fix the climate.

 

[sk47]

Hello; I eagerly await the responses this will generate. A picture is worth a thousand words.

 

[CJJon]

Hello; I eagerly await the responses this will generate. A picture is worth a thousand words.

How about people that do that are assholes?

 

[Bikeman315]

If you’re going to post a picture do your homework to confirm it’s validity. I’ve seen this before and it’s total BS. Why am I not surprised.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-4759910337

 

[sk47]

Hello; The signs seem authentic. Trashing the planet to save the planet. Going to war for peace. Intercourse for chastity. Driving a mustang GT to stop CO2 emissions. Having to fly worldwide in a private jet to save the environment.

It is all the plastic trash which stands out for me. Plastic cups, straws, bottles, plastic foam food containers. The paper could have been recycled.

Do not know if you planned this out. Fairly sure there will be a comeback.

 

[sk47]

Hello; Back a little over four years ago a very liberal friend I have known since high school hung up the phone on me and I have not heard from him since. We were in a bad drought at the time. Lots of fires in the area. Some towns running out of water and such.
We had been having discussions from opposite sides of the political divide for some time. The experience with those talks has helped me to understand how to handle such discussions. Anyway he was not happy with the way I had responded to some hot topic of the day. He was going on about how his position was morally superior to my position. It was not too hard to find the flaws in his position , which upset him. I just did not understand he would say over and over. Having a different point of view had to be a flaw in my thinking and not in his position, he would repeat again and again.

So he was becoming aggravated with me and said he had to go wash his car. I pointed out we were in the middle of a bad drought. He said since there was no official restriction in place on such water use he intended to wash the car. I questioned him, asking if he actually had to be told by some official to know better that to use water to wash a car in a drought. That was the final thing I guess. He hung up and I have not heard from him since. I guess the point of this is he was all for the environmental ideas except when it interfered with something he wanted to do.
I on the other hand was very willing to allow my vehicles to stay dirty, yet somehow in his mind I had the wrong take on things.

Well, just a few days later a fire in the Smoky Mt. National Park was driven by 60+ MPH winds several miles to the town of Gatlinburg TN. Some of the town burned. Lots of homes burned. Several people burned to death. Lots of trees and wildlife burned. Turns out two teens set the fire on purpose, not by accident. The punishment, if any, for those teens has been kept secret and I still do not know what happened to them. The state of TN dropped the case against them using that the fire started on federal park land as the reason. Still do not know what the feds did about it.
I was in the area after the fires were put out by rain and saw burned hulks of cars being towed away. I was in Gatlinburg today and you still can find evidence of the fire if you look for it.

Interesting thing has been after that time of drought my area has had a few years of excess rain and record flooding. Some places having been flooded never known to have flooded before. This last winter had more snow than in several years, was colder and we are having a very cool spring.

 

[Burkey]

What does any of this have to do with disproving entire fields of scientific study?

Please connect the dots for us simpletons.

Sponsored