I Have My Window Open

Status
Not open for further replies.
[
iaresee said:
Y'all are conflating news articles on science with scientific research.

One targets a grade four reading level, the other does not.
Click to expand...
Science press is the absolute worst.

BTW I have a policy: avoid any article online that had a headline with two sentences, where the second sentence begins with the word “Here’s...” followed by who, what, where, when or why, then whatever abS reason they think you’ll click it.
Example of the format: “A Thing Just Happened. Here’s What It Means”. This is trash filler content for the sake if content. Its sophisticated clickbait, and it’s not science.
 
USMC_Trev said:
Science press is the absolute worst.

BTW I have a policy: avoid any article online that had a headline with two sentences, where the second sentence begins with the word “Here’s...” followed by who, what, where, when or why, then whatever abS reason they think you’ll click it.
Example of the format: “A Thing Just Happened. Here’s What It Means”. This is trash filler content for the sake if content. Its sophisticated clickbait, and it’s not science.
Click to expand...
I'm mostly at the point where the news in general is intolerable.

I just hang out here and argue with all of you instead. :)
 
plexi59 said:
The only problem I have with this whole thing is the solutions being proposed will ruin the economy and there's no guarantee they'll actually do anything
Click to expand...
How do you know they'll ruin the economy? Economic models are notoriously hard to develop. :)

@plexi59 I will admit I had orginally posted a thing where I pointed out the acid in your statements made for some hipocracy. I totally missed this quote nugget above when I first read through your post. And, on further reflection, it's this sentence above that really drives home how much of a satire you intended your post to be. Going off about the toddlers in climate sciences, the purity of physics and then stating, with absolute certainity, the output of your economic model really is some of the best comedy I've encountered this week.

Shows you why a careful read is always appropriate.

Thanks for the laughs!
 
Last edited:
iaresee said:
How do you know they'll ruin the economy? Economic models are notoriously hard to develop. :)
Click to expand...
There is plenty of money making new tech.

A big part of the problem is that those invested in old tech have also invested in senators and media to keep everyone thinking backwardly.
 
How do you know they'll ruin the economy?
Click to expand...

Easy. See who's proposing all this stuff. People who never had an honest job in their lives and think money grows on trees. Did you ever think, when voting in local elections, that you wouldn't want these people running a hot dog stand, yet you have to pick one of the lesser evils? Guess what who's making laws in Washington DC? These same people, only a few years later.
 
Joe Bfstplk said:
photo-thumb-500x376-57911.jpeg
Click to expand...
Yes, by all means, let's create a "better world". But the list in this cartoon is currently technologically and economically unrealistic. If you think it is, I encourage you to turn off your furnace, stop buying stuff (including guitars), and stop driving to work, see how well that works out for you.
 
plexi59 said:
Easy. See who's proposing all this stuff. People who never had an honest job in their lives and think money grows on trees. Did you ever think, when voting in local elections, that you wouldn't want these people running a hot dog stand, yet you have to pick one of the lesser evils? Guess what who's making laws in Washington DC? These same people, only a few years later.
Click to expand...
Like I said: pure comedy. Your commitment to your art is commendable.
 
Comedy or tragedy, to each his own. I personally think it's quite tragic that instead of nuclear (which could solve emissions within a couple of decades) we're picking things that are totally harebrained and dependent on whether the wind is blowing or on whether there are clouds. But what do I know. I do not propose that we do nothing. I just propose a sober, evidence based cost/benefit analysis, and policy guided by such analysis. In the absence of such analysis I prefer to do things that are good for the environment, yet economically feasible.
 
plexi59 said:
Comedy or tragedy, to each his own. I personally think it's quite tragic that instead of nuclear (which could solve emissions within a couple of decades) we're picking things that are totally harebrained and dependent on whether the wind is blowing or on whether there are clouds. But what do I know. I do not propose that we do nothing. I just propose a sober, evidence based cost/benefit analysis, and policy guided by such analysis. In the absence of such analysis I prefer to do things that are good for the environment, yet economically feasible.
Click to expand...
Fukushima.
 
USMC_Trev said:
That’s been figured out a loooooong time ago. The equation is simple: eat less, sweat more. That fact is simply indisputable.

There are “scientists” that would dispute that statement. Are those scientists doing bad science in order to make a buck? Probably. My problem is not with science it is with people who manipulate data to prove there point

Scientists don't want your faith and never asked for it. All anyone with a STEM background asks is for you to look at all the data, not just cherry-pick the facts that support your argument.

I am in a STEM work environment as an engineer! I work at a company that uses data to solve problems and I have personally seen other engineers and scientists manipulate data to prove their point just because of ego. And I have seen it cost thousands of dollars! I don’t really see why climate scientists would be any different.

Another angle to take on you is that you put your faith in a scientist when you plunked your money down for a Fractal product. You put your faith in scientists of nearly every discipline every time you get in your car, open a carton of milk, and sit down to write your idiot posts.

Like I said, I’ll believe it when I see it. I’m not disputing that scientists and engineers have used scientific principles to improve our quality of life, I’m just saying that I don’t trust a scientists view as fact until it has been proven. BTW I’m not saying that I don’t believe in climate change or that it is caused by humans I’m just skeptical of the people who say that it is a fact!

You’re such a bright flash of ignorant stupidity that I can’t waste my time anymore. You’re blocked just like the other ostrich.
Click to expand...
This last bit was my favorite! Bright flash of ignorant stupidity! I would think given your trust in STEM personal you would give an Engineer a bit more leeway discussing the reliability of scientific theories...
 
Anyone ever read State of Fear by Michael Crichton?

It's fiction but includes a lot of factual information.

Some interesting things mentioned are that a) the amount of historical records we have on temperature doesn't go back very far (really a speck in geological terms but still small relative to human history) and b) many of the records are questionable, and were often "fudged" because nobody was actually able to get to the locations where the the measurements needed to be taken and c) most of models being used were far from verified as valid.

The title and premise of the book is that those in power stay in power by keeping the general public in a state of fear and the way they do that is by pushing agendas...

While I'm not denying the climate may be changing, I'm not convinced that the cause is man made. For all we know, this is part of a cycle the happens periodically (on geological scale).
 
Literally several orders of magnitude more people die because we don't build enough nuclear, Fukushima and Chernobyl notwithstanding. And on top of that more radiation is emitted into the atmosphere as well by burning coal. An easily verifiable fact. And Fukushima was built almost 50 years ago. We have reactor designs now with which Fukushima style disasters are physically impossible, as well as the kind that consumes nuclear "waste". Russia already has one of those on the grid. No water. No hydrogen. There's nothing in it that can possibly blow up.
 
unix-guy said:
While I'm not denying the climate may be changing, I'm not convinced that the cause is man made. For all we know, this is part of a cycle the happens periodically (on geological scale).
Click to expand...

Agreed. There seems to be a lot of folks either being willfully ignorant or being uninformed that the Earths axis has changed (by several degrees, and continues to change) far faster than they predicted. That has had a massive effect on it. Couple that with the fact, they're finding more and more info that the sea temp may be increasing, not due to air temp, but due to a huge increase in undersea volcanic activity. Clearly, neither of which are caused by anything human beings are doing.

plexi59 said:
Literally several orders of magnitude more people die because we don't build enough nuclear, Fukushima and Chernobyl notwithstanding. And on top of that more radiation is emitted into the atmosphere as well by burning coal. An easily verifiable fact. And Fukushima was built almost 50 years ago. We have reactor designs now with which Fukushima style disasters are physically impossible, as well as the kind that consumes nuclear "waste". Russia already has one of those on the grid. No water. No hydrogen. There's nothing in it that can possibly blow up.
Click to expand...

Would be nice if countries would change over to Thorium reactors instead. While they aren't perfect, they're significantly safer than the current version of nuclear reactors used today. Most of the reason those were even used was the ability to use the by products for weapons. :neutral:
 
Last edited:
Joe Bfstplk said:
Fukushima has already FUBAR'ed the oceans. Ocean currents will circulate that crap everywhere eventually.
Click to expand...

That amount doesn't really matter at all.

Nuclear reactors would solve a lot of problems, but have also a lot of problems on their own. They would not be the final solution.
I don't have a solution and at the moment there is no grenn, "clean" or emission free energy that is feasible for the whole planet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom