Minenfeld!

Members
  • Content Count

    127
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Minenfeld!

  • Birthday July 2

Profile Information

  • Four Letter Airport Code For Weather Obs (Such as KDCA)
    KDXR
  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    Brookfield, CT

Recent Profile Visitors

427 profile views
  1. To be fair, that would improve Miami quite a bit. Also, how is civilization dependent on the ICE? That's certainly not the only method we have of generating power.
  2. This is hilariously untrue. Do you have any idea what kinds of intra-field infighting happens everywhere? Particularly fields that are gated behind professional certifications and education?
  3. One of the key parts of my work every summer is the creation of yearly retrospective documents for each of our programs, so perhaps I can offer some advice. I've read your outlooks for a few years now and they tend to run into a few issues: verbosity and repetition. You should start with an introduction, analyze last year's outlook, begin with a general outlook, break down the months, and end with a conclusion. The repetitive index explanations can fit into an appendix of sorts. You have a great deal of analysis to share--it just needs some tweaks in presentation.
  4. I would disagree. I personally think that Fukushima is an example of nuclear being safe. It was hit by two enormous disasters and didn't suffer catastrophic failure. That's pretty impressive engineering. Chernobyl was specifically a human-induced disaster that did not have to happen. The deficiencies in the reactor design and what could happen under certain conditions was known. They proceeded anyway. The Russians also weren't big into building containment structures for their reactors like other countries were which added to the issue.
  5. No doubt you're correct. However, I would suggest that we can look to other countries or to our own past for examples of how we can do these large projects. France moved forward in the wake of the 70's oil crisis with a large civilian nuclear program that has paid dividends today. If we rely on private enterprise to build power plants, the costs become a bottleneck. If we decide that we can do it through government action, we could overcome the startup costs associated with nuclear plant construction. We as a nation were able to plan and execute the national highway system or the infrastructure projects of the New Deal. There are plenty of ways to greatly improve rail service without acquiring new right of way that would require battles over real-estate. Alon Levy wrote a series of three blog posts, starting here, detailing how to improve rail service in the NYC metro area. Zoning changes are also feasible. Minneapolis recently did away with single-family zoning restrictions city-wide. Otherwise, yes, I would agree that we don't really have the political will to accomplish these tasks and our federal structure isn't conducive to actual coordination like a modern, developed nation requires in order to function properly.
  6. A few suggestions off the top of my head would be the construction of nuclear power plants and the closure of all coal and other fossil fuel power plants; a general (hopefully global) wealth tax to replace things like income tax; increased use of rail for long distance shipping and the end of long-distance trucking as a main method of shipping; the break-up of large corporations such as Amazon or Facebook; curtailing the use of aircraft for short distance travel between cities and increased use of rail; and zoning overhaul of cities and suburbs to decrease sprawl and automotive use. I know this is an eclectic list and it speaks to a variety of my own topics of interest, but I believe it is a good place to start.
  7. CO2 is used as a shorthand for various greenhouse gases among the general public. You'll have to explain what you mean by a "CO2 fallacy". We've known its ability to trap heat since the mid- to late-1800s. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the "narrative has switched away from CO2" and to "climate change". Reducing CO2 emissions is nearly universally tied to averting climate change. Using the term climate change as a term rather than say, global warming, is a rhetorical shift that I believe goes back to Gingrich. This doesn't, of course, change the fact that a dramatic overhaul of the world's economies would be a plus regardless of climate change.
  8. What kind of sacrifices do we have to make to get the pattern to change? Goats? Bulls?
  9. As others have mentioned, politics has always been in everything. What you're describing is a combination of the flattening of the meaning of knowledge and political belief being used as a proxy for personal morality. The hyper-availability of knowledge via the internet has placed the traditional gatekeepers of knowledge (i.e. experts or those with professional qualifications) on a level playing field with literally anyone and their Mom. Combine that with elevating "I'm just asking questions" and the idea that everything is always debatable and...well, here we are.
  10. I'm an analyst that works at a multi-service organization that includes a school. I'm involved in our grant process. I get how it works. You're still not grappling with the fact that wealth and power don't tend to come from bucking the status quo. Why would someone seek to use their position to establish a carbon tax when they could simply make more money--now, not having to wait for a carbon tax--by defending those that would be taxed from a carbon tax? You're applying all this skepticism to those that are seeking to challenge the status quo, but not looking at the naked reality staring you in the face.
  11. At the end of the day I do not know how to convince someone that expertise is important and isn't a hoax perpetrated by someone to get one over on you. There seems to be a fundamental mindset difference between some people where they're searching for how someone is out to get them.
  12. Ah yes, the well-known spring of wealth known as academia. Average salaries for climate scientists are lower than those of oil lobbyists or their mercenary enablers. Power and control flow from the enormous profits derived from the fossil fuel industries. This isn't a controversial point. Neither is the simple fact that the science is settled on AGW. We're learning about particulars and dialing in our knowledge--not disputing the basic premise. Those that deny this deserve the pejoratives heaped upon them because they simply are deniers at this point and there is no point in debating a topic that isn't a mystery. Suggesting that scientists are seeking power and wealth may sound like a good argument at face value, but it is an insult to knowledge and simply ignores where the true wealth and power is. There's wealth in the status quo and there's money to be made enlisting yourself in its service.
  13. That was from a UN climate report. Here's a question though: let's assume that man-made climate change is a hoax or worse. A hoax implies some form of conspiracy. What, if anything, do those perpetrating the hoax have to gain?