Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[CiG]

I'm surprised Dak doesn't define or in this case interpret "intellectuals" in the way Sowell presents. It's a pretty good definition.

 

[Dak]

By "intellectuals" I didn't necessarily mean Ivy-Leaguers. Cruz is an Ivy-League man, as you point out, and he's far from intellectual. Someone like Friedrich Hayek, on the other hand, is an intellectual. I consider it something having less to do with credentials and more to do with the complexity of thought reflected in one's speech or writings.

That's a sufficiently vague definition though, at least at a glance, to be a "they". MARs see pretty much intellectuals in pretty much the same vague terms, even if under the surface there is a vast difference. If enough guys from the same places, in fancy suits with fancy degrees, keep fucking you over, eventually you're going to be real distrustful if not angry regarding those places, suits, and degrees.

I disagree on your comment about intellectuals not having in mind the best interests of those you're calling the MARs. If we're talking about something like, say, global warming, then they most certainly have everyone's best interests in mind. It might not look that way, however, to a MARs who cannot perceive the effects of global warming outside his living room window (and who is told by people like Cruz that it's all a myth).

I disagree. Simply saying "we must do something about climate change" and then the somethings most vociferously fought for mostly affects a domestic political antagonist base doesn't appear to have "everyone's best interests at heart". Truck Driver(until the robots take over) is basically the leading job category across the US now:

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/02/05/382664837/map-the-most-common-job-in-every-state

Rising costs for reducing emissions increase costs of goods and services for everyone, and hamper wages and job growth in this massive sector. OTOH, we see no real effort to reduce emissions in the military, where government already has total say. We see no real effort on the part of the bureaucracy or the elected officials to reduce emissions by downsizing, eliminating commutes, etc - things businesses have to do in light of regulation.

Then we have the complexly contradictory nature of being "environmentally minded". For example: being anti-nuclear power goes hand in hand with being vocal about climate change. Holding these two positions only make sense if you want to send large swaths of the population back to the pre-industrial era. There's a reason developing nations push back hard against carbon emission regulation: They'd like to be developed at some point.

This is the really sad thing. People want a president basically as dumb as they are (to put it in crude terms). I want a president smarter than I am. This time around, I don't think I'll get that at all. But I firmly believe I got it when Obama was elected (personal opinion).

Well Obama isn't on the dumb side of the scale, OTOH he's not a genius or anything. Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz are both highly intelligent. This only serves to make their megalomania more dangerous, not less so: especially since their affiliations are suspect.

People can generally only relate to someone fairly close to themselves on the IQ scale. Since the majority of people are "average", that's what is most likely to appeal.

 

[Einherjar86]

I disagree. Simply saying "we must do something about climate change" and then the somethings most vociferously fought for mostly affects a domestic political antagonist base doesn't appear to have "everyone's best interests at heart". Truck Driver(until the robots take over) is basically the leading job category across the US now:

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/02/05/382664837/map-the-most-common-job-in-every-state

Rising costs for reducing emissions increase costs of goods and services for everyone, and hamper wages and job growth in this massive sector. OTOH, we see no real effort to reduce emissions in the military, where government already has total say. We see no real effort on the part of the bureaucracy or the elected officials to reduce emissions by downsizing, eliminating commutes, etc - things businesses have to do in light of regulation.

I can't agree with this because it's still limited by the same scope that I critique in the blog post. Basically, you're limiting yourself to the immediate interests of an individual - specifically, personal income.

Obviously this is an important factor, but scientists who work on global warming are concerned about their being a world in which we are still around to earn personal income, or in which our children are. You're often talking about the value in children regarding survival and longevity - concern over global warming goes hand in hand with this.

It may be that there aren't currently any proposals that effectively correlate immediate personal welfare with long-term concerns, but this doesn't mean that scientists don't have everyone's best interests in mind. Clearly, there isn't any proposal that correlates the two, since - as you say - there haven't been any significant efforts to reduce emissions. But it isn't the responsibility of scientists to figure out how to do that.

Then we have the complexly contradictory nature of being "environmentally minded". For example: being anti-nuclear power goes hand in hand with being vocal about climate change. Holding these two positions only make sense if you want to send large swaths of the population back to the pre-industrial era. There's a reason developing nations push back hard against carbon emission regulation: They'd like to be developed at some point.

You're presenting a false dichotomy: "either accept nuclear power, or regress technologically." There are other methods of channeling power, which have mostly failed to deliver - either because we haven't discovered the most effective means of channeling it, or because those efforts are being blocked by those with financial interests (or both).

Additionally, scientists who publish on global warming can still admit that, as of our current historical moment, nuclear power is quite necessary. The findings might challenge certain personal beliefs, but it doesn't change the data. You seem to be lumping environmentalists and scientists in together. While it's certainly true that scientists can be environmentalists, it's also true that data can challenge personal beliefs. Certain scientists may very well know that the world is getting warmer and that nuclear power contributes to this, and yet still believe that nuclear power is necessary. This isn't a contradiction in argument, it's simply a matter of - as you say - complex social demands.

 

[Dak]

You keep focusing on what the scientists are saying or not saying. I'm focusing on the politicians. Even if every scientist were presenting perfect data, there's a disconnect as it hits the political sphere. I don't see any sort of coherent policy groups or behaviors from those with power to drive change.

As far as energy production goes, the numbers I have seen show pretty clearly that even with max solar production and storage efficiency there's no way the entire world can live in FW standards. Wind and hydro power are extremely problematic. Nuclear is the only other known option at this point.

 

[Einherjar86]

I know I keep focusing on scientists. That's because that's where evidence for global warming begins. It precedes politics, and yet deniers want to insist that all the evidence for global warming is actually evidence of scientists being bought by politicians. It's absurd.

There is no such thing as perfect data, but there are common repeating patterns in different presentations of data. This is enough to provide the basis for a deductive theory on climate change.

As far as energy goes, I'm aware that nuclear power is the most efficient, as I already said. This doesn't change the data on global warming.

 

[rms]

I cant go through every link on here but why is the declining fish population being attributed to the warming of the oceans?

 

[Einherjar86]

The oceans are becoming more acidic, corroding the shells of shellfish and the coral reefs. Additionally, overfishing has led to an increase in cephalopod populations, both in number and in size. All in all, it's just throwing off the ecosystem.

 

[rms]

Last I read the reefs are back to normal or on the right track. Dont get the cephalopod reference?

 

[Einherjar86]

The reefs are in pretty bad shape. Some are starting to permanently dissolve:

http://gizmodo.com/coral-reefs-in-florida-are-starting-to-permanently-diss-1774427441

Writing this week in Global Biogeochemical Cycles, Langon and his co-authors describe the results of a two-year field campaign that surveyed a 124-mile stretch of the Florida Reef Tract north of Biscayne National Park to the Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary. Their conclusion? The reefs, which support a $7.6 billion fishing industry, are wasting away.

“From laboratory studies, we thought that the reefs wouldn’t start to dissolve until the CO2 in our atmosphere rose to 550 or 600 parts per million,” Langdon told Gizmodo. (Our atmospheric CO2 load is presently hovering around 400 ppm.) “It was a real surprise to see that it could be happening sooner.”

On cephalopods:

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(16)30319-0

We show that cephalopod populations have increased over the last six decades, a result that was remarkably consistent across a highly diverse set of cephalopod taxa. Positive trends were also evident for both fisheries-dependent and fisheries-independent time-series, suggesting that trends are not solely due to factors associated with developing fisheries. Our results suggest that large-scale, directional processes, common to a range of coastal and oceanic environments, are responsible. This study presents the first evidence that cephalopod populations have increased globally, indicating that these ecologically and commercially important invertebrates may have benefited from a changing ocean environment.

 

[rms]

The cephalopod thing just says they are increasing, and quite honestly it sounds positive.

The Florida thing is interesting, but I hear the Great Barrier Reef is OK now.

But why CO2 deposits are settling more towards Florida than anywhere else, which the article (seems) to imply is a stone left un turned. Especially since Florida is a region that is also experiencing rising sea levels (right?) so the dilution of the CO2 deposits is another thing im not clear on.

 

[Dak]

I know I keep focusing on scientists. That's because that's where evidence for global warming begins. It precedes politics, and yet deniers want to insist that all the evidence for global warming is actually evidence of scientists being bought by politicians. It's absurd.

There is no such thing as perfect data, but there are common repeating patterns in different presentations of data. This is enough to provide the basis for a deductive theory on climate change.

As far as energy goes, I'm aware that nuclear power is the most efficient, as I already said. This doesn't change the data on global warming.

Well politicians don't produce evidence of things. The idea of democracy is that rather than have a sovereign ruler or ruling body, we "choose our leader". But when the leaders chosen act in the interests of those outside of the electorate more so than for the electorate, the electorate has every right to be mad. Immigration, trade, and environmental policy are all tilted to the benefit of people not a part of the US electorate, or with no roots in the US - for the most part. The beltway elite and Ivy Leaguers are fine with that - no skin off their nose, and it gives them the moral feels.

I'm skeptical about warming, but I'm not adament about it. I simply don't see it worth caring about much at this point. There isn't the will or understanding in much of the world to address it, much less even assess it. I've accepted that if it is or will happen, it's gonna happen. I don't know that it's even a net negative if it is "real". There are serious problems pretty much across the globe and it's probably going to take a massive die-off to correct to some degree. Which is why it would behoove smart people to reproduce - but they don't seem to want to. The future belongs to those who show up. And "intellectuals" have decided they care so much about the future that they don't intend to "show up".

Edit: I'm sure the Deepwater oil spill and all the polluted mud and silt washing into the Gulf all the time couldn't possibly have an impact on that reef entirely separate from CO2 emissions.....

 

[Einherjar86]

The cephalopod thing just says they are increasing, and quite honestly it sounds positive.

Sure, it's great for cephalopods. The point is that their population is changing due to overfishing as well as other changes in ocean environment. You can't pick one detail and say "excellent!"

Just take this blog post for instance, and we can see that the increase in cephalopods is likely the result of other factors that aren't so great: http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=6709

The Florida thing is interesting, but I hear the Great Barrier Reef is OK now.

Here's my question: what does "now" mean? Does it mean that coral dissolution has seemed to taper off in the past year or two? Because that isn't a sign of good things - it isn't a sign of anything, really. When we talk of coral dissolution, we're talking about an event hundreds of years in the making. You can't pick a couple of recent years as definitive evidence.

Climate chang deniers do the same thing. They take measurements back to about the mid-nineties or so and say temperatures have evened out, if not dropped. That looks great and might be accurate, but it isn't definitive evidence that global warming isn't real. Global warming is a massive process that takes place over hundreds of years.

I'll post this report on the GBR: http://www.aims.gov.au/documents/30...+GBR.pdf/cf4b474b-32c4-4733-bf8e-27457cd40835

The Great Barrier Reef has lost half its coral cover since 1985

We know this from direct monitoring, involving 2,258 reef surveys covering 214 reefs over a 27 year sampling period. These studies were undertaken as part of the AIMS Long Term Monitoring Program for the GBR- ̶the most comprehensive monitoring program of any reef system in the world. In 2012, AIMS published a paper that summarised the major trends in reef condition over the 27 years to 2012 and reported that the Reef had lost half its coral cover over this time. Subsequent studies have armed these trends. Some reefs are doing better, some are doing worse, and coral reefs go through cycles of disturbance and recovery. But the general trend over the past three decades shows that coral cover, the number of juvenile corals, and other important processes for coral reefs such as calcification, have been decreasing. For example, the rate of growth of Porites coral (measured by calcification) declined by 11 per cent between 1990 and 2005.

The recent decline in coral calcification is unprecedented in at least the past 400 years

We know this from studies of long coral core records. Coral growth can be measured by coral calcification- ̶the speed at which their calcium carbonate skeleton is deposited. Sustained calcification is essential for coral recovery, and for repair to the Reef after physical erosion (such as from storms) and biological erosion. The recent slowing of coral growth rates on the Reef between 1990 and 2005 has also been reported for several other reef locations around the world. The observed decline in calcification in the eld is likely to be due to warming seas. Laboratory experiments indicate that future declines in calcification will be driven by ocean warming and acidification.

But why CO2 deposits are settling more towards Florida than anywhere else, which the article (seems) to imply is a stone left un turned. Especially since Florida is a region that is also experiencing rising sea levels (right?) so the dilution of the CO2 deposits is another thing im not clear on.

Not sure I follow. Coral decline is happening in places other than Florida.

Well politicians don't produce evidence of things. The idea of democracy is that rather than have a sovereign ruler or ruling body, we "choose our leader". But when the leaders chosen act in the interests of those outside of the electorate more so than for the electorate, the electorate has every right to be mad. Immigration, trade, and environmental policy are all tilted to the benefit of people not a part of the US electorate, or with no roots in the US - for the most part. The beltway elite and Ivy Leaguers are fine with that - no skin off their nose, and it gives them the moral feels.

Kind of at a head here... I don't disagree with this comment. But I wouldn't lump politicians and scientists together. This is where I would say that many scientists have a genuinely expansive sense of the common good. Politicians... I won't elevate them to the same degree.

I'm skeptical about warming, but I'm not adament about it. I simply don't see it worth caring about much at this point. There isn't the will or understanding in much of the world to address it, much less even assess it. I've accepted that if it is or will happen, it's gonna happen. I don't know that it's even a net negative if it is "real". There are serious problems pretty much across the globe and it's probably going to take a massive die-off to correct to some degree. Which is why it would behoove smart people to reproduce - but they don't seem to want to. The future belongs to those who show up. And "intellectuals" have decided they care so much about the future that they don't intend to "show up".

That isn't true at all. Plenty of smart people want to have children, but they want to wait until they're financially capable of doing so. I'm surprised that you of all people would confuse fiscal responsibility with indifference.

Edit: I'm sure the Deepwater oil spill and all the polluted mud and silt washing into the Gulf all the time couldn't possibly have an impact on that reef entirely separate from CO2 emissions.....

I'm sure they do have an impact.

 

[rms]

Not sure how to quote efficiently on my phone but ill do my best to be clear...

The evidence about rising populations of cephalopods seems true, and I get that the growth is somewhat attributed to the "changing" environment in the ocean (acidification) but to somehow link that to a barren ocean filled with monsters seems to be the connection here. I know the jellyfish population is also increasing dramatically due to the amount of plastic in the ocean as well.

I dont think your statement about global warming being presented as a several century process is true at all. The barrier reef piece even says its a ~30 YR study and its comparison is to a time 400 years ago. Global warming discussions are frequently about the doomsday in the near future, 2020...2050 etc. if we are talking centuries of projections then we might be even more arrogant as a species then I thought

I think you touched on the OK part about the reef so do not think there is anything to say...but the whole climate change discussion is all about recent changes and how that verifies or disputes the overall narrative. But if you are referring only to scientific and not "mainstream" pieces then I understand the sensationalism vs evidence based understanding

 

[Einherjar86]

I dont think your statement about global warming being presented as a several century process is true at all. The barrier reef piece even says its a ~30 YR study and its comparison is to a time 400 years ago.

400 years means four centuries ago. I'm totally confused by this comment.

 

[rms]

The article suggested the last time it was this "bad" was 400 years ago. Which I take to meant from year 399 to the present was much better. Not as in from year 400 to 150 the climate/ocean was in this condition which is then comparable to the conditions today.

Are you referring to a time comparison ie 1500-1900 or in year 1500 it was X?

 

[Dak]

I'm not really interested in debating whether global warming is real. It either is or it isn't. Assuming it is: Then what? That's where the debate that matters is.

But that's not why I even criticized the take on intellectuals and the Trump base. The Trump base consists significantly of the formerly or currently but receding middle class. The middle class in the US has been hollowed out by predatory policy or at best ignoring by their purported "leadership". The response is understandable.

 

[Einherjar86]

The article suggested the last time it was this "bad" was 400 years ago. Which I take to meant from year 399 to the present was much better. Not as in from year 400 to 150 the climate/ocean was in this condition which is then comparable to the conditions today.

Are you referring to a time comparison ie 1500-1900 or in year 1500 it was X?

Okay, I understand your question. I'm saying this:

400 years ago marks a point at which the oceans weren't great. 400 years prior to that they were probably better and stable, meaning that 400 years ago marked a new low. Since then, they've improved somewhat, but have since worsened so that now marks a new moment of concern - the oceans are as bad as they were 400 years ago, and getting worse, which means we'll witness a new low in the decades to come. 400 years from now, that new low may be surpassed by an even worse state (depending on the conditions of possibility).

In other words, the entire process goes in cycles of improvement and worsening that are gradually shifting negatively with the advent of CO2 emissions, increased pollution, overfishing, etc.

To think of it in abstract but simpler terms, it's as though global warming moves in a "two steps forward, one step back" kind of pattern.

I'm not really interested in debating whether global warming is real. It either is or it isn't. Assuming it is: Then what? That's where the debate that matters is.

But that's not why I even criticized the take on intellectuals and the Trump base. The Trump base consists significantly of the formerly or currently but receding middle class. The middle class in the US has been hollowed out by predatory policy or at best ignoring by their purported "leadership". The response is understandable.

Fair enough.

But if hollow promises warrant irrational responses, then why don't you also find the reactions of Black Lives Matter protestors understandable?

 

[Dak]

Fair enough.

But if hollow promises warrant irrational responses, then why don't you also find the reactions of Black Lives Matter protestors understandable?

What hollow promises are you referring to for BLM? What are they protesting?

MRAs also aren't shitting all over their own neighborhoods/gunning each other down with abandon in "protest".

 

[Einherjar86]

Take your pick. Equality, wealth, affluence, prosperity, blah blah blah. It's the same promises that politicians have failed to deliver to the forgotten middle class that Trump is currently courting. If their failures constitute an "understanding" of middle class angst, why do we draw the line at "understanding" poverty-angst (or, dare I say it, black angst)?

I'd rather not make excuses. Looting and murdering is bad. So, in my opinion, is believing that global warming is a left-wing conspiracy. There are systemic reasons for both, but that doesn't mean we shoulder tolerate either.

 

[Dak]

Take your pick. Equality, wealth, affluence, prosperity, blah blah blah. It's the same promises that politicians have failed to deliver to the forgotten middle class that Trump is currently courting. If their failures constitute an "understanding" of middle class angst, why do we draw the line at "understanding" poverty-angst (or, dare I say it, black angst)?

I thought BLM was because there is supposed targeting of blacks by police. I can't find any statistics to back that up. If they are mad because not enough gimmedats then that's clearly baseless (unless "too much is never enough"). Just about the only "intersection" between BLM angst and Trump voter angst is about the loss of manufacturing jobs in the Rust Belt and extending south, and I'd say there's a much thinner line to the BLM side of that.

I'd rather not make excuses. Looting and murdering is bad. So, in my opinion, is believing that global warming is a left-wing conspiracy. There are systemic reasons for both, but that doesn't mean we shoulder tolerate either.

The reason for believing it is a leftwing conspiracy is because of the proposed policies to "combat it".That's what I have already mentioned. There's almost never an empowering policy (and the ones that have been fashioned only benefit the upper middle class and above, like tax credits/rebates on improving energy efficiency in homes). It's nearly always "let's tax the shit out of X and hand some money to some cronies". That's why I said the important debate is about what should be done about it. Denial is an easy pre-emptive measure.