Climate Change Discussion/ split from What is the purpose of a Taekwondo form?

[elder999]

Name 2.

Bumping this up as well, because @dvcochran likely doesn't have an answer that will satisfy me, particularly since this was the happier part of my field....

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I disagree. The overselling of a technology is the basis for the problem in Germany. Wind power is a great thing. But don't kid yourself. At the current tech it is not a replacement for oil/coal, or hydro. It doesn't even subsidize very well yet. Ok, go ahead and pile on some more.

That overselling is not an issue with the tech, though. It’s a policy issue. Policy about technology isn’t the technology’s fault.

You are correct that the current “green” tech can’t yet replace fossil and nuclear. That’s a valid argument, and I wonder why you went through all those other things before going to it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Ocean Wave Energy | BOEM

Stop being condescending. I know what the hell it is, so postin a link to an explanation of what it is is unrelated to the question. How is it “taming nature”, and how is a comment about a hurricane related to either of those?

 

[DaveB]

I disagree. The overselling of a technology is the basis for the problem in Germany. Wind power is a great thing. But don't kid yourself. At the current tech it is not a replacement for oil/coal, or hydro. It doesn't even subsidize very well yet. Ok, go ahead and pile on some more.

So then it is another instance of the problem of misinformation.

Unless you can explain how socialist policy makers are more prone to investing in solutions that won't solve the issue they are trying to solve?

 

[DaveB]

Hmm, hmm, who is the current conservative POTUS? Likewise conservatives are here to stay, clearly in much greater numbers.
You obviously do not know that socialism is a problem. Study a little. You saying, anything, in an earlier post means very little.

I have been discussing the bigger picture of the issue. You refuse to get past crying about how it is happening to offer anything in the way of a solution. I have been trying to explain how complex the solution is. If in fact there is one than humans can mitigate. I have more faith in mother nature blowing another big volcano or meteor strike.

Come on now, the discussion is there for everyone to see. You started off claiming that the very issue of climate change was in debate.

Without ever conceding that you were wrong, you seem to have switched track now to want to talk about solutions to the problem that "we don't know if it's a problem".

But nobody ever pretended to have full answers to the problem of climate change. The closest we previously came to that topic was to refute the wild leaps to extremism that you made in order to straw man the opposition in this discussion.

Your still straw manning the discussion with this constant attempt to frame solution ideas as socialist. Where in reality anything that can actually be called a solution will be some combination of scientific/engineering invention and governmental regulation regarding manufacturing processes, farming and waste management.

Now I know regulation will make you think "socialism" and start reaching for the holy water, but conservatives make laws too. And for once, the one thing that should not be partisan and actually isn't for most of the rest of the planet, is the survival of the planet.

 

[DaveB]

Because the comment is so much so, it feels rather stupid responding. How does any thinking person get "irrational fear" out of anything I have said. Oh wait, a thinking person....

Irrational fear of socialism, yes, definitely.

You sat (past tense as you seem to have quietly conceded defeat) in opposition to the scientific consensus with a still unexplained need to consider non expert sources as your only defence.

Now, as the layers of your position are stripped away you lash out with insults while your interlocutors have remained pretty civil.

That's a pretty clear sign of an emotional response, not a rational one.

The thing you must remember is that though we like to think otherwise we humans are emotional beings first. Our rationality is usually a justification for what we already feel. Hence the need to seek out sources that agree with our feelings and trust those while ignoring 98% of published peer reviewed research on a topic.
Hence our justifications for conquest, slavery, genocide etc.

Until we are able to honestly engage with our underlying emotions we can never hope to overcome our own biases and act in a genuinely rational way.

I've admitted my fear to you. I fear my son will live in poverty on a slowly dying world, as our livable landmass is reduced and our ecosystem collapse.

Now my mad max visions might be over the top, but catastrophic irreversible damage to the world is still closer to the scientific consensus than "we'll be fine, its just weather". And peer reviewed science based on measurable evidence is the closest we get to unbiased fact.

So that leads me to think we should do something about the problem. What do we do?

We do whatever the scientific consensus is. If that is a drastic change like a 90% reduction in fossil fuel use then we move towards it as quickly as is possible. Both through changes in behaviour and through implementation of our best technological solutions as and when we get them.

And yes that may involve ordering private companies to retool towards the effort. It was ok in ww2 it should be ok now.

We work out the knock on effects of each change as best we can and we legislate as best we can to prevent harm. Then we take action, ideally as one United human species to save our one and only home world.

I don't really see what is socialist about fixing a global scale crisis.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Irrational fear of socialism, yes, definitely.

You sat (past tense as you seem to have quietly conceded defeat) in opposition to the scientific consensus with a still unexplained need to consider non expert sources as your only defence.

Now, as the layers of your position are stripped away you lash out with insults while your interlocutors have remained pretty civil.

That's a pretty clear sign of an emotional response, not a rational one.

The thing you must remember is that though we like to think otherwise we humans are emotional beings first. Our rationality is usually a justification for what we already feel. Hence the need to seek out sources that agree with our feelings and trust those while ignoring 98% of published peer reviewed research on a topic.
Hence our justifications for conquest, slavery, genocide etc.

Until we are able to honestly engage with our underlying emotions we can never hope to overcome our own biases and act in a genuinely rational way.

I've admitted my fear to you. I fear my son will live in poverty on a slowly dying world, as our livable landmass is reduced and our ecosystem collapse.

Now my mad max visions might be over the top, but catastrophic irreversible damage to the world is still closer to the scientific consensus than "we'll be fine, its just weather". And peer reviewed science based on measurable evidence is the closest we get to unbiased fact.

So that leads me to think we should do something about the problem. What do we do?

We do whatever the scientific consensus is. If that is a drastic change like a 90% reduction in fossil fuel use then we move towards it as quickly as is possible. Both through changes in behaviour and through implementation of our best technological solutions as and when we get them.

And yes that may involve ordering private companies to retool towards the effort. It was ok in ww2 it should be ok now.

We work out the knock on effects of each change as best we can and we legislate as best we can to prevent harm. Then we take action, ideally as one United human species to save our one and only home world.

I don't really see what is socialist about fixing a global scale crisis.

I'll even point out that there are a lot of companies trying to find a capitalist, privatized way to contribute to the solution. Tesla is an example. How much are any of them helping? I don't yet know. Are some of them doing it out of the goodness of their hearts? Probably. Are some of them doing it only because they see a chance for profit (perhaps driven by subsidies)? Probably. We actually need both of those types of companies to get where we need to on this. And, yep, we need government to regulate to both support the change and prevent those who would take advantage of the higher cost of the change by NOT changing, so they can make more money.

 

[dvcochran]

Irrational fear of socialism, yes, definitely.

You sat (past tense as you seem to have quietly conceded defeat) in opposition to the scientific consensus with a still unexplained need to consider non expert sources as your only defence.

Even after I said I was tapping out I continued to answer post, so if you missed something that is on you. Apparently I said something to move you enough to respond.
I have never, never, said the science is wrong. I have said we do not know all that it means. You set within paper walls feeding off only what you are wanting to hear, never challenging the difficult questions. Blind Lemmings following each other.

Now, as the layers of your position are stripped away you lash out with insults while your interlocutors have remained pretty civil.

Thin skinned much? My position is what it always was. All the information from our discussion has been targeted at what we know with the short term information we have. I never, never said we should do nothing. I have said, repeatedly, what we do next is much more complex than you are willing to admit. It is irrational to think otherwise they way you are.

That's a pretty clear sign of an emotional response, not a rational one.

The thing you must remember is that though we like to think otherwise we humans are emotional beings first. Our rationality is usually a justification for what we already feel. Hence the need to seek out sources that agree with our feelings and trust those while ignoring 98% of published peer reviewed research on a topic.
Hence our justifications for conquest, slavery, genocide etc.

You are pretty good if you can diagnose me from a few posts. So how is that rational?
My business used to also deal with service calls and break downs. The call would come in something similar to "Ahh! the line is down! Sometimes this actually meant a real loss of over $10,000/minute just in material cost. My best trait, and what has made my business successful is I never panic. Dozens of people would literally be standing over me asking "when, when when, I never get emotional and just do the work. In high level meetings involving millions of dollars I never get emotional. I cannot or I may miss something. I learned early on that emotion and passion, while they have their place, can really get you in trouble, especially when you are unable to apply realism and understand everything that is influencing a problem. You, apparently cannot do this. So go ahead and try to set on high and quote some ridiculous percentage. It is irrational to be incapable of stepping back and acknowledging the answers to the very complex topic are incredibly multi-faceted. It will not be a science only solution.
We have a 24 year old son. Of course I want him to go up in a better environment.
One consistent theme I see with the liberal mindset is that they often have never learned just because you want something doesn't mean you get it. You have to do the work.
So you try to say I am not rational. I say you certainly are not a realist.

So that leads me to think we should do something about the problem. What do we do?

We do whatever the scientific consensus is. If that is a drastic change like a 90% reduction in fossil fuel use then we move towards it as quickly as is possible. Both through changes in behaviour and through implementation of our best technological solutions as and when we get them.

And yes that may involve ordering private companies to retool towards the effort. It was ok in ww2 it should be ok now.

I guess you are referring to how a great many U.S. companies started building war machines for WW2? The big difference was we already had the resources and the technology. We knew we could, and already had built the machines. We knew the how.
We don't have the tech yet to make such a simple as statement as "go out and retool". We don't yet have the known constants that we can build off of. That is why I previously said mistakes and likely disasters will occur as we advance our knowledge. Realist, not irrational.
I have never, never said do nothing or that nothing can be done. I have simply tried to be a voice of reason. As to your WW2 reference, it would not at all surprise me if the greatest solutions will be industrious instead of scientific. Science may be the what but not the how.

 

[dvcochran]

I'll even point out that there are a lot of companies trying to find a capitalist, privatized way to contribute to the solution. Tesla is an example. How much are any of them helping? I don't yet know. Are some of them doing it out of the goodness of their hearts? Probably. Are some of them doing it only because they see a chance for profit (perhaps driven by subsidies)? Probably. We actually need both of those types of companies to get where we need to on this. And, yep, we need government to regulate to both support the change and prevent those who would take advantage of the higher cost of the change by NOT changing, so they can make more money.

Government involvement in its current state means lobbyist influence. This is heavily true on both party sides. Let the innovators and industry leaders do what they do best. The control limits should be there in a balanced economic approach so that what happened in Germany doesn't happen again. It is a excellent example to the point I have been trying to make. Regulating and supporting innovation are two very, very different things.

 

[dvcochran]

Come on now, the discussion is there for everyone to see. You started off claiming that the very issue of climate change was in debate.

Without ever conceding that you were wrong, you seem to have switched track now to want to talk about solutions to the problem that "we don't know if it's a problem".

But nobody ever pretended to have full answers to the problem of climate change. The closest we previously came to that topic was to refute the wild leaps to extremism that you made in order to straw man the opposition in this discussion.

Your still straw manning the discussion with this constant attempt to frame solution ideas as socialist. Where in reality anything that can actually be called a solution will be some combination of scientific/engineering invention and governmental regulation regarding manufacturing processes, farming and waste management.

Now I know regulation will make you think "socialism" and start reaching for the holy water, but conservatives make laws too. And for once, the one thing that should not be partisan and actually isn't for most of the rest of the planet, is the survival of the planet.

Your still straw manning the discussion with this constant attempt to frame solution ideas as socialist. Where in reality anything that can actually be called a solution will be some combination of scientific/engineering invention and governmental regulation regarding manufacturing processes, farming and waste management.

Gee. I never heard that before. Try to keep up.

 

[dvcochran]

Stop being condescending. I know what the hell it is, so postin a link to an explanation of what it is is unrelated to the question. How is it “taming nature”, and how is a comment about a hurricane related to either of those?

Ok, putting the cookies on the bottom shelf. The tech uses the ocean. Nature has proven time and again the ocean is difficult to predict and control. I do not understand how the connection cannot be made. Think of all the boats that have sank, dams and levy's that have broken, and structures demolished by the forces of water. Not to mention the lives lost.
I hope we do make strides with the tech. If free energy if we can figure out how to harness it safely and effectively.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You set within paper walls feeding off only what you are wanting to hear, never challenging the difficult questions. Blind Lemmings following each other.

Where the heck do you get that notion?

 

[dvcochran]

Isn't it amazing how like minded we can be about certain things (MA) yet see other things so differently?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Government involvement in its current state means lobbyist influence. This is heavily true on both party sides. Let the innovators and industry leaders do what they do best. The control limits should be there in a balanced economic approach so that what happened in Germany doesn't happen again. It is a excellent example to the point I have been trying to make. Regulating and supporting innovation are two very, very different things.

I'd love to let the innovators do what they do best. Unfortunately that also means the unprincipled people who don't care (and yes, there are some of those) also get to do whatever they want. We have plenty of examples from history to show that some businesses cannot be trusted to do what is right. Government's job is to restrict that as best they can.

As for supporting innovation, that's something government can do. The track record on it is pretty mixed, largely because of two factors, I think: the lobbying you referred to, and lawmakers putting together laws with too little information/understanding. It is and will be flawed, but it can be beneficial.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Ok, putting the cookies on the bottom shelf. The tech uses the ocean. Nature has proven time and again the ocean is difficult to predict and control. I do not understand how the connection cannot be made. Think of all the boats that have sank, dams and levy's that have broken, and structures demolished by the forces of water. Not to mention the lives lost.
I hope we do make strides with the tech. If free energy if we can figure out how to harness it safely and effectively.

Yes, it uses the ocean, but it doesn't attempt to control or tame it. Every structure everywhere is subject to nature. We deal with it. Some of it is at higher risk than other areas. You're an engineer - you know all that becomes part of the evaluation and mitigation of risk in both design and deployment.

You're being either purposely obtuse, or just condescending. Either way, you're usually better than that.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Isn't it amazing how like minded we can be about certain things (MA) yet see other things so differently?

What amazes me is when normally-rational people resort to name-calling and strawmen. "Blind lemmings"???? And that you do it without trying to make any rational argument in there...

 

[dvcochran]

Yes, it uses the ocean, but it doesn't attempt to control or tame it. Every structure everywhere is subject to nature. We deal with it. Some of it is at higher risk than other areas. You're an engineer - you know all that becomes part of the evaluation and mitigation of risk in both design and deployment.

You're being either purposely obtuse, or just condescending. Either way, you're usually better than that.

I have sat back and gathered data based on the responses. If I decide to push back is with equal effort. If I an not as tactful as so would wish I apologize. It is the realist in me.

 

[dvcochran]

I'd love to let the innovators do what they do best. Unfortunately that also means the unprincipled people who don't care (and yes, there are some of those) also get to do whatever they want. We have plenty of examples from history to show that some businesses cannot be trusted to do what is right. Government's job is to restrict that as best they can.

As for supporting innovation, that's something government can do. The track record on it is pretty mixed, largely because of two factors, I think: the lobbying you referred to, and lawmakers putting together laws with too little information/understanding. It is and will be flawed, but it can be beneficial.

Agree, but the lawmakers are a part of government. Lobbyist are the insidious misinformation givers used by government too often as facts. Another flaw in our system that has to be fixed.
I have been saying this whole time there may be too little understanding to start making broad range decisions.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I have sat back and gathered data based on the responses. If I decide to push back is with equal effort. If I an not as tactful as so would wish I apologize. It is the realist in me.

You seem to be having an entirely different discussion than I am, DV. Several responses you've given don't seem to be related to the post you quote. You referred to taming nature, and I commented that it wasn't taming nature. In response you referred to Katrina, and I asked how that was related. So you posted a link explaining wave energy tech as if I'd asked what it was. So I asked again what that had to do with taming nature or hurricanes. Only then did you get around to explaining that you were saying the equipment would be at risk, as if that was something that wouldn't have been thought of.

Condescension (cookies on the low shelf) isn't pushing back. You can do better.

 

[Flying Crane]

Hmm, hmm, who is the current conservative POTUS? Likewise conservatives are here to stay, clearly in much greater numbers.
You obviously do not know that socialism is a problem. Study a little. You saying, anything, in an earlier post means very little.

I have been discussing the bigger picture of the issue. You refuse to get past crying about how it is happening to offer anything in the way of a solution. I have been trying to explain how complex the solution is. If in fact there is one than humans can mitigate. I have more faith in mother nature blowing another big volcano or meteor strike.

Mis-post