Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week
- Thread starter Ender Rises
- Start date
Einherjar86
Active Member
I have no idea. I didn't mean that people would begin taking action or anything like that - only that they would see the state of things and go "oh shit."
At that point, action will be too late anyway; and honestly, it probably already is. We're already counteracting the consequences rather than looking at truly preventative measures. From my perspective, I think it's crucial to target the mentality of skepticism surrounding global warming; undermining that would at least do something to promote social action. Of course, so many people are absolute dullards when it comes to this issue that they refuse to listen to even the simplest explanations for the mechanics behind climate change (which really are not that complicated). Which is why I would then encourage regulatory political measures, which only adds more fuel to the rhetorical shitstorm.
At that point, action will be too late anyway; and honestly, it probably already is. We're already counteracting the consequences rather than looking at truly preventative measures. From my perspective, I think it's crucial to target the mentality of skepticism surrounding global warming; undermining that would at least do something to promote social action. Of course, so many people are absolute dullards when it comes to this issue that they refuse to listen to even the simplest explanations for the mechanics behind climate change (which really are not that complicated). Which is why I would then encourage regulatory political measures, which only adds more fuel to the rhetorical shitstorm.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Dak
mentat
I'm skeptical about planetary warming. I'm not skeptical about any other number of environmental impacts.
People are self interested creatures, and that extends to scientists, "intellectuals", and politicians. It makes perfect sense for Joe Six Pack to notice that almost none of the standard environmental moralizers are "practicing what they preach", and that "solutions" put forward are nearly always politically/economically targeted in such a way so as to not hurt those in power. If things were really so serious, wouldn't the people claiming it is serious be acting differently? This is the thought process. Now, it could be incorrect - the self interest of those moralizers and those with hands on levers of power may simply also be seeking to achieve change while offloading any ill-effects - thus not really changing much of anything substantial in environmental terms, while wreaking havoc on Joe Six Pack and family.
This kind of leads into a bit of criticism on your blogpost about the relationship between MARs ("Middle American Radicals") and "intellectuals". I don't know what "intellectual" means. It has become another term effectively synonymous with "they". Something that your observations overlook regarding the antagonism between the MARs and what I will specify as beltway elites/Ivy Leaguers, is that MARs rightfully recognize that to even say that those Ivy Leaguers et al don't have their "best interests at heart" would be a massive understatement. There is a mutual disdain, and it now approaches a fever pitch because of a combination of forces putting extreme pressure on MARs - forces created by policies championed by those elites and Ivy Leaguers. The economics of Empire involves siphoning wealth from the hinterlands to the Capitol(s), and for the United States, the hinterlands includes the South practically from coast to coast, as well as the northern middle. Which is where most Trump support is. Although Trump is extremely "big city", he talks like them (and I mean in the way that he talks, not the words themselves)when he says the things they want to here . He presents himself believably as someone on their side. There is a reason Cruz failed most miserably in trying to capture the "anti-establishment" anger: He's 100% establishment (Ivy League? Check. Lawyer/Politician? Check), and nothing about his career or how he presents himself suggested otherwise. MARs are no longer interested in platitudes and fuzzy ideas which prove to be a cover for the politician to fuck them over once in office. There's a chance Trump might still fuck them over, but everyone else was a sure bet.
People are self interested creatures, and that extends to scientists, "intellectuals", and politicians. It makes perfect sense for Joe Six Pack to notice that almost none of the standard environmental moralizers are "practicing what they preach", and that "solutions" put forward are nearly always politically/economically targeted in such a way so as to not hurt those in power. If things were really so serious, wouldn't the people claiming it is serious be acting differently? This is the thought process. Now, it could be incorrect - the self interest of those moralizers and those with hands on levers of power may simply also be seeking to achieve change while offloading any ill-effects - thus not really changing much of anything substantial in environmental terms, while wreaking havoc on Joe Six Pack and family.
This kind of leads into a bit of criticism on your blogpost about the relationship between MARs ("Middle American Radicals") and "intellectuals". I don't know what "intellectual" means. It has become another term effectively synonymous with "they". Something that your observations overlook regarding the antagonism between the MARs and what I will specify as beltway elites/Ivy Leaguers, is that MARs rightfully recognize that to even say that those Ivy Leaguers et al don't have their "best interests at heart" would be a massive understatement. There is a mutual disdain, and it now approaches a fever pitch because of a combination of forces putting extreme pressure on MARs - forces created by policies championed by those elites and Ivy Leaguers. The economics of Empire involves siphoning wealth from the hinterlands to the Capitol(s), and for the United States, the hinterlands includes the South practically from coast to coast, as well as the northern middle. Which is where most Trump support is. Although Trump is extremely "big city", he talks like them (and I mean in the way that he talks, not the words themselves)when he says the things they want to here . He presents himself believably as someone on their side. There is a reason Cruz failed most miserably in trying to capture the "anti-establishment" anger: He's 100% establishment (Ivy League? Check. Lawyer/Politician? Check), and nothing about his career or how he presents himself suggested otherwise. MARs are no longer interested in platitudes and fuzzy ideas which prove to be a cover for the politician to fuck them over once in office. There's a chance Trump might still fuck them over, but everyone else was a sure bet.
Einherjar86
Active Member
There's more CO2 in the atmosphere today than there was hundreds of years ago. That means there's more infrared radiation, which means more heat.
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.
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).
You're absolutely right that scientists are individuals and therefore self-interested. But it is absolutely possible for someone who's self-interested to still publish findings without warping them to fit a political agenda. In the sciences, studies on global warming have been carried out across the institutional field, meaning they've been confirmed by the big wigs as well as the small-timers. This is evidence that stacks up to more than political agendas.
I agree that Cruz lost in part because he couldn't speak in the vernacular of common sense - he speaks like a politician, rhetorically polished. But he also lost because he represented a version of firebrand fundamentalism that, while many of those who support Trump might sympathize, or even say they identify, with, it's beyond their immediate concerns as far as the current presidential race goes. Trump can fumble through Bible verses like an idiot, and that's good enough for them.
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).
CiG
Room with a View
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
mentat
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. 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.
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
Active Member
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.
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
mentat
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.
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
Active Member
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.
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
Active Member
I cant go through every link on here but why is the declining fish population being attributed to the warming of the oceans?
Einherjar86
Active Member
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
Active Member
Last I read the reefs are back to normal or on the right track. Dont get the cephalopod reference?
Einherjar86
Active Member
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
On cephalopods:
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(16)30319-0
http://gizmodo.com/coral-reefs-in-florida-are-starting-to-permanently-diss-1774427441
On cephalopods:
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(16)30319-0
rms
Active Member
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.
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
mentat
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
Active Member
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
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
GBR said:
Not sure I follow. Coral decline is happening in places other than Florida.
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.
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.
I'm sure they do have an impact.
rms
Active Member
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
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
Active Member
rms
Active Member
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?
Are you referring to a time comparison ie 1500-1900 or in year 1500 it was X?
