Winter Banter Thread

[LibertyBell]

1 hour ago, bluewave said:

Yeah, I thought the perspective on climate change from Adam Frank was a more helpful way of looking at it.

https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2015/10/06/446109168/climate-change-is-not-our-fault

It's time to change the way we talk about climate change.

Political leaders have acknowledged human-driven (or "anthropogenic") global warming since 1964 (when President Lyndon Johnson mentioned it in a speech to Congress). Since then, however, we've done almost nothing to address its dangers. As everyone knows, the problem is the political polarization of an issue that is, at its root, a scientific question.

But it's more than that, too.

Our inability to even get past "yes, it's happening" stems from the stories we've been telling about how climate change happened as well as what means about us and for us in terms of the human future.

So, today, I want to hit you with a different story and different perspective on this thing called climate change.

You ready? Here it goes.

It's not our fault.

Climate change is not our fault.

Now, let me be clear about exactly what I mean. Yes, global warming is happening and, yes, it's because of human activity. Specifically, climate change is occurring because the massive use of fossil fuels to power our global, social, industrial, etc., etc., etc., civilization.

That part of the story is just science and it is unassailable. Anyone who says otherwise is living in a fantasyland.

But here's the crux of the issue: 150 years ago when we started building that fossil-fuel based civilization, we had no idea of what we were doing. We'd found this black goo seeping up from the ground and it turned out you could do awesomethings with it. In the winter, you could burn it in a furnace and keep your house warm. In the summer, you could burn it in a power plant and use the electricity to keep your house cool. You could also burn it in an internal combustion engine and travel hundreds of miles in a single day. And all that electricity you were generating from the power plant? You could use that to keep the lights on at night and watch moving pictures of stuff happening on the other side of the planet.

And don't even get me started on fertilizer and the plastics you get from fossil fuels. That stuff is versatile!

Now, the story we usually tell ourselves about the world we built from fossil fuels — and the climate change it created — is that humans are evil and greedy. We're a plague on the planet and global warming is just the way the planet is getting rid of us.

 

But there is another way to tell that story.

We didn't change the climate because we were greedy. We did it by mistake. We did it using the gifts evolution bequeathed to us. Human beings have been building civilizations out of whatever we could get our hands on for at least 8,000 years: stone, rope, canvas, iron.

It's just kind of how we roll.

From my perspective as an astronomer, human beings and the cultures we've created are just another expression of the planet. We're not inherently bad or anti-nature. We're just something the Earth has done and, if you look at it, we've done it pretty well. Without intending to, we changed the atmospheric radiation transport properties of an entire planet.

That's kind of remarkable for a bunch of hairless apes.

So, I think it's time for us to go beyond of these narratives of our inherent greed and unworthiness. They are inherently divisive and they have nothing to do with the science of climate change.

That's because the real truth is this: While triggering climate change might not be our fault, not doing everything we can about it now that we know it's happening — that would be our fault. Worse, it would be our failure as a species.

For all our capacity to render horror and stupidity, we human beings have done some pretty awesome things. Many times across our history we've shown the gift of genius and compassion. That, too, is a planetary expression. So, let's start telling ourselves a different kind of story about the challenge we face.

After all, we'll need everyone on board helping to figure out the next steps in keeping this great project of civilization moving forward.

He's only partially correct.....yes the earth "created" us but the earth favors biodiversity over one species dominating....any time one species dominates for a significant length of time, it goes extinct, when it exceeds the "tipping point".  That's just the way the planet "rolls" and there's nothing wrong with that; when humanity goes extinct, it's the planet that will benefit from that.

He mentioned plastics, which I found to be horrendous, since we're now finding plastics inside our own body and they create toxicity (for other species and for us.)

[LibertyBell]

I also don't buy this naive "But we didn't know!" excuse he gave.  Maybe you and I didn't know but the people who developed these harmful chemicals sure as hell knew.  Exxon, for example, knew exactly what was going to happen going all the way back to the 70s.  And as far as other chemicals are concerned, companies like 3M and DuPont knew about how awful PFOA were because it made their own employees sick and better solutions were available in the 60s and yet they (literally) chose to bury the evidence and it was only uncovered during a lawsuit. Monsanto, another one of those evil companies, knew exactly how dangerous its pesticides were and yet their chief scientist in a black and white ad said it was safe enough to drink.   Thank goodness for lawsuits to deal with their kind.  Dow tried to manipulate laws to allow spraying of more toxic chlorpyrifos in California about a decade ago. Their kind does indeed deserve to go extinct.

 

[bluewave]

7 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

I also don't buy this naive "But we didn't know!" excuse he gave.  Maybe you and I didn't know but the people who developed these harmful chemicals sure as hell knew.  Exxon, for example, knew exactly what was going to happen going all the way back to the 70s.  And as far as other chemicals are concerned, companies like 3M and DuPont knew about how awful PFOA were because it made their own employees sick and better solutions were available in the 60s and yet they (literally) chose to bury the evidence and it was only uncovered during a lawsuit. Monsanto, another one of those evil companies, knew exactly how dangerous its pesticides were and yet their chief scientist in a black and white ad said it was safe enough to drink.   Thank goodness for lawsuits to deal with their kind.  Dow tried to manipulate laws to allow spraying of more toxic chlorpyrifos in California about a decade ago. Their kind does indeed deserve to go extinct.

 

He was talking about we didn’t know 150 years ago how big fossil fuel energy would become and change the planet. We pretty much just stumbled upon it which was true. Just like we just happened to find agriculture 10,000 ago which shifted civilization from hunter gatherer to settling in cities and building nation states. So the industrial revolution was a natural consequence of agriculture even though it took thousands of years. The oil companies knew about carbon emissions warming the planet since the early 80s. Their internal  models were very accurate.

 

 

[forkyfork]

2 hours ago, bluewave said:

Yeah, I thought the perspective on climate change from Adam Frank was a more helpful way of looking at it.

https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2015/10/06/446109168/climate-change-is-not-our-fault

It's time to change the way we talk about climate change.

Political leaders have acknowledged human-driven (or "anthropogenic") global warming since 1964 (when President Lyndon Johnson mentioned it in a speech to Congress). Since then, however, we've done almost nothing to address its dangers. As everyone knows, the problem is the political polarization of an issue that is, at its root, a scientific question.

But it's more than that, too.

Our inability to even get past "yes, it's happening" stems from the stories we've been telling about how climate change happened as well as what means about us and for us in terms of the human future.

So, today, I want to hit you with a different story and different perspective on this thing called climate change.

You ready? Here it goes.

It's not our fault.

Climate change is not our fault.

Now, let me be clear about exactly what I mean. Yes, global warming is happening and, yes, it's because of human activity. Specifically, climate change is occurring because the massive use of fossil fuels to power our global, social, industrial, etc., etc., etc., civilization.

That part of the story is just science and it is unassailable. Anyone who says otherwise is living in a fantasyland.

But here's the crux of the issue: 150 years ago when we started building that fossil-fuel based civilization, we had no idea of what we were doing. We'd found this black goo seeping up from the ground and it turned out you could do awesomethings with it. In the winter, you could burn it in a furnace and keep your house warm. In the summer, you could burn it in a power plant and use the electricity to keep your house cool. You could also burn it in an internal combustion engine and travel hundreds of miles in a single day. And all that electricity you were generating from the power plant? You could use that to keep the lights on at night and watch moving pictures of stuff happening on the other side of the planet.

And don't even get me started on fertilizer and the plastics you get from fossil fuels. That stuff is versatile!

Now, the story we usually tell ourselves about the world we built from fossil fuels — and the climate change it created — is that humans are evil and greedy. We're a plague on the planet and global warming is just the way the planet is getting rid of us.

 

But there is another way to tell that story.

We didn't change the climate because we were greedy. We did it by mistake. We did it using the gifts evolution bequeathed to us. Human beings have been building civilizations out of whatever we could get our hands on for at least 8,000 years: stone, rope, canvas, iron.

It's just kind of how we roll.

From my perspective as an astronomer, human beings and the cultures we've created are just another expression of the planet. We're not inherently bad or anti-nature. We're just something the Earth has done and, if you look at it, we've done it pretty well. Without intending to, we changed the atmospheric radiation transport properties of an entire planet.

That's kind of remarkable for a bunch of hairless apes.

So, I think it's time for us to go beyond of these narratives of our inherent greed and unworthiness. They are inherently divisive and they have nothing to do with the science of climate change.

That's because the real truth is this: While triggering climate change might not be our fault, not doing everything we can about it now that we know it's happening — that would be our fault. Worse, it would be our failure as a species.

For all our capacity to render horror and stupidity, we human beings have done some pretty awesome things. Many times across our history we've shown the gift of genius and compassion. That, too, is a planetary expression. So, let's start telling ourselves a different kind of story about the challenge we face.

After all, we'll need everyone on board helping to figure out the next steps in keeping this great project of civilization moving forward.

none of that is going to comfort the hundreds of millions of victims in the global south

[bluewave]

9 minutes ago, forkyfork said:

none of that is going to comfort the hundreds of millions of victims in the global south

We use fossil fuels to power our human civilization. Renewables can’t scale up fast enough to make a difference. Nuclear fusion is always 10 -20 years away. So we will probably be relying on fossil fuels much longer than we should. Since there is so much inequality in this world, the people least able to adapt to climate change are often impacted the most. 

[LibertyBell]

23 minutes ago, forkyfork said:

none of that is going to comfort the hundreds of millions of victims in the global south

or the American South

[LibertyBell]

7 minutes ago, bluewave said:

We use fossil fuels to power our human civilization. Renewables can’t scale up fast enough to make a difference. Nuclear fusion is always 10 -20 years away. So we will probably be relying on fossil fuels much longer than we should. Since there is so much inequality in this world, the people least able to adapt to climate change are often impacted the most. 

we need to talk about something people are unwilling to talk about-- human population simply increased too quickly, either we stabilize the population or nature will stabilize it for us.  We get to chose (only for a limited amount of time though.)  Honestly, the pandemic offered us a window into an opportunity for a better future with lower air and water pollution and lower emissions.  As I said, either we chose this future or nature will choose it for us.  We have a limited window of time to make that choice before it's too late.

 

[LibertyBell]

39 minutes ago, bluewave said:

He was talking about we didn’t know 150 years ago how big fossil fuel energy would become and change the planet. We pretty much just stumbled upon it which was true. Just like we just happened to find agriculture 10,000 ago which shifted civilization from hunter gatherer to settling in cities and building nation states. So the industrial revolution was a natural consequence of agriculture even though it took thousands of years. The oil companies knew about carbon emissions warming the planet since the early 80s. Their internal  models were very accurate.

 

 

This seems to be the case with every large corporation in every industry, they always cover up anything that will curtail their profits.  It's the definition of corporate psychopathy

 

[IrishRob17]

5 hours ago, Brian5671 said:

Interesting.  If that's the case (4 months) maybe should wait til mid to late April to apply?

I've applied as late as the first week in May but typically shoot for mid April.

[bluewave]

25 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

This seems to be the case with every large corporation in every industry, they always cover up anything that will curtail their profits.  It's the definition of corporate psychopathy

 

Any entity that gains unchecked power whether government or corporate is doing harm. I have always been for the underdog. 

[LibertyBell]

Just now, bluewave said:

Any entity that gains unchecked power whether government or corporate is doing harm. I have always been for the underdog. The system can often be unkind and harsh. More power to the people.

I hunted down an article by the same author you quoted, and this one really sums up my thinking and has for the past 30 years

https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2018/03/09/591906007/getting-climate-change-right-in-light-of-the-stars

Of course we triggered climate change. We've been using planetary-scale amounts of energy to build and maintain this amazing planetary-scale project of civilization. Of course the Earth noticed. What else did you expect to happen? Imagine that aliens, with our knowledge of climate, landed on Earth in ancient Rome. They could have looked around and predicted: "Yeah, you guys are gonna trigger climate change in a few thousand years."

In fact, aliens make an important part of this story. Given what we now know about climate, we can see that any large-scale technological civilization developing on any planet would likely trigger its own version of climate change. What is an industrial civilization but a means for converting vast amounts of energy into useful work? The laws of climate literally demand that so much energy use has to transform into planetary feedbacks.

So, yeah, we're a wildly successful species that's built a wildly successful planetary civilization. That changed the climate. Duh. What else did we expect to happen?

But are we smart enough, and successful enough, to see this truth and deal with it effectively?

Given the 10 billion trillion potentially habitable planets in the universe, we are likely not the first time a civilization has appeared and faced the climate change it created. In some cases, that climate change may have become an existential threat to the civilization's existence (as it may become for humanity). So, in the end, the most important question of all may be one we have yet to even fully imagine.

Are we to join the universe's winners who met their climate challenge and moved forward — or will we fade away with the cosmic losers too stubborn to see the truth before their eyes?

[bluewave]

8 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

hunted down an article by the same author you quoted, and this one really sums up my thinking and has for the past 30 years

Wonder what percentage makes to type 1-3?

 

 

 

[rclab]

10 minutes ago, bluewave said:

Wonder what percentage makes to type 1-3?

 

 

 

Good afternoon BW and thank you for the video. Easy to grasp and nicely organized, verbally. As to your question …. I would fear the results if Don’s sensitivity analysis was applied to it. Stay well, as always …..

[bluewave]

1 minute ago, rclab said:

Good afternoon BW and thank you for the video. Easy to grasp and nicely organized, verbally. As to your question …. I would fear the results if Don’s sensitivity analysis was applied to it. Stay well, as always …..

Good question. 

[LibertyBell]

23 minutes ago, bluewave said:

Wonder what percentage makes to type 1-3?

 

 

 

based on what we've found / not found, probably less than one in a million, maybe even less than one in a billion.

 

[matt8204]

1 hour ago, bluewave said:

Any entity that gains unchecked power whether government or corporate is doing harm. I have always been for the underdog. 

Agreed.  They inevitably become corrupt and start to exploit people who have no choice but to bend to their will.  

[forkyfork]

57 minutes ago, matt8204 said:

Agreed.  They inevitably become corrupt and start to exploit people who have no choice but to bend to their will.  

most people are stupid and need to be controlled by the government 

[North and West]

most people are stupid and need to be controlled by the government 

.

[rclab]

1 hour ago, forkyfork said:

most people are stupid and need to be controlled by the government 

Good evening forky. “Stupid is as stupid does” (or says) stay well, as always …..

[bluewave]

4 hours ago, matt8204 said:

Agreed.  They inevitably become corrupt and start to exploit people who have no choice but to bend to their will.  

Also too much groupthink denies the uniqueness of the individual in bigger organizations. One size fits all policy approaches leave many good folks behind. Especially people with various challenges or disabilities. We need much better support systems for people in these groups.  

[LibertyBell]

14 hours ago, North and West said:

.

He's not completely wrong though--- the only way to prevent companies from destroying the environment is to bring the mighty fist of government regulations down upon them.

Here's what most don't understand.... humanity is part of the environment, so when we damage it we damage ourselves.  The horrible things that companies like Monsanto, Dow, DuPont, Bayer, etc did aren't just crimes against the planet, they are crimes against humanity and should be punished mightily for it-- it all comes down to lawsuits and crippling them financially, but I'd also love to see severe criminal prosecution of these companies and if corporations are to be treated like people, let's put the death penalty for corporations on the table, because they fully deserve it.

 

On another topic, lithium and cobalt mining is not just about the environment, but about the horrific conditions of labor (really slave labor, much like the palm oil cartels in Indonesia and Malaysia) and on top of that lithium and cobalt are most EXTREMELY flammable.  We're now seeing the start of severe restrictions on lithium batteries in NYC, and there need to be, because a large percentage of dangerous fires in NYC are started by lithium batteries.  I avoid them like the plague, much preferring NiMH technology instead.  Lithium is going to be replaced by solid state and green hydrogen, which are both MUCH better and much more environmentally friendly and less dangerous too.  Green hydrogen has already been used in the first airplane flight a few weeks ago and it will find its way into vehicles in the next few years.  One of the science groups I converse in is very excited about it.

[LibertyBell]

15 hours ago, forkyfork said:

most people are stupid and need to be controlled by the government 

100% concur

99% of people are stupid and need to be controlled....and that includes corporations.

"average" people are stupid too, but are more dangerous because they can do much more harm than a below average person.

But the government is corrupt too and needs to be controlled also-- I'd say by AI, since AI is best equipped to make rational scientific decisions than any human on this planet ever could.

Freedom should not include the right to be ignorant, stupid or corrupt.

 

[coastalplainsnowman]

10 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

100% concur

99% of people are stupid and need to be controlled....and that includes corporations.

"average" people are stupid too, but are more dangerous because they can do much more harm than a below average person.

But the government is corrupt too and needs to be controlled also-- I'd say by AI, since AI is best equipped to make rational scientific decisions than any human on this planet ever could.

Freedom should not include the right to be ignorant, stupid or corrupt.

 

Wow.  

I have about a hundred problems with the above, but I'll just say this:  History says that when governments take the sort of control that you are wishing for here, the very first people who lose their, uh, rights, are the academics, the professors, i.e. not the people you guys would consider 'stupid.'  And history says that those very same rounded up people were the ones wishing, right up to the moment they were rounded up,  'Oh, if only we had a strong government to control these stupid masses.'   

[North and West]

100% concur
99% of people are stupid and need to be controlled....and that includes corporations.
"average" people are stupid too, but are more dangerous because they can do much more harm than a below average person.
But the government is corrupt too and needs to be controlled also-- I'd say by AI, since AI is best equipped to make rational scientific decisions than any human on this planet ever could.
Freedom should not include the right to be ignorant, stupid or corrupt.
 

You guys are a lot smarter than me in regards to weather and climate, but the desire to control people never works out.

Imagine yourself in a personal or professional relationship and your partner or manager lets you know how stupid you are and that you need to be controlled because you’re just too inept and incompetent for your own good. Do you think, “Thank goodness a luminary light has allowed me to see my sheer, unending stupidity!”

I doubt it. This never ends well whether personally or professionally or politically.


.

[Nibor]

11 minutes ago, North and West said:

You guys are a lot smarter than me in regards to weather and climate, but the desire to control people never works out.

Imagine yourself in a personal or professional relationship and your partner or manager lets you know how stupid you are and that you need to be controlled because you’re just too inept and incompetent for your own good. Do you think, “Thank goodness a luminary light has allowed me to see my sheer, unending stupidity!”

I doubt it. This never ends well whether personally or professionally or politically.


.

You’re controlled everyday you just don’t realize it because you’re used to it. 

[LibertyBell]

30 minutes ago, North and West said:

You guys are a lot smarter than me in regards to weather and climate, but the desire to control people never works out.

Imagine yourself in a personal or professional relationship and your partner or manager lets you know how stupid you are and that you need to be controlled because you’re just too inept and incompetent for your own good. Do you think, “Thank goodness a luminary light has allowed me to see my sheer, unending stupidity!”

I doubt it. This never ends well whether personally or professionally or politically.


.

We're kind of joking around (at least I am lol).....but the real problem is eventually the "controller" even if they start out with good intentions also has the ability to do horrible things (remember J Edgar Hoover, FBI, etc.)  That's why the only acceptable entity doing the controlling would be AI that would self evolve based on altruism, and I'm not even sure that's possible.

 

Punishing corporations for their misdeeds (which current government doesn't properly do because they've been infiltrated by them and their lobbyists) and establishing benefit corporations that seek to preserve the environment and better society, is a real and realizable goal though....it should be done.

 

[LibertyBell]

18 minutes ago, Nibor said:

You’re controlled everyday you just don’t realize it because you’re used to it. 

Yes the key to maintaining it is not realizing it.

We get bombarded with so many ads every day and targeted advertizing and then there's the issue of mass surveillance (both by government and by companies.)

 

[LibertyBell]

43 minutes ago, coastalplainsnowman said:

Wow.  

I have about a hundred problems with the above, but I'll just say this:  History says that when governments take the sort of control that you are wishing for here, the very first people who lose their, uh, rights, are the academics, the professors, i.e. not the people you guys would consider 'stupid.'  And history says that those very same rounded up people were the ones wishing, right up to the moment they were rounded up,  'Oh, if only we had a strong government to control these stupid masses.'   

Yes see the other post I made after that one, I have problems with it because no human is truly free of corruption, even if it's only corruption of thought, if given the power of control....that corrupt thought can easily turn into corrupt action.  That's why I also added that government itself needs to be controlled....and the only way I see that being properly done is by AI, but altruistic science based AI, I'm not sure if the level of complexity we need and making altruism part of the self evolution process is entirely possible.  As something gets more complex and more advanced, I intuitively believe that it becomes less altruistic and more ego driven (even AI).  You end up with the Russian Doll (Matroshka) Effect....you always need to find a way to control the controller....talk about recursive function hell lol.

I would always choose government over corporations because of the horrible things corporations have done ever since the first multinational corporations started up (the British and Dutch East India Companies), but I would choose academics over both.  Unfortunately academics don't like being policy makers.

 

[North and West]

You’re controlled everyday you just don’t realize it because you’re used to it. 

.

[Dark Star]

12 hours ago, bluewave said:

Also too much groupthink denies the uniqueness of the individual in bigger organizations. One size fits all policy approaches leave many good folks behind. Especially people with various challenges or disabilities. We need much better support systems for people in these groups.  

UNFORTUNATELY, too many able bodied people take advantage of the well intentioned programs set up for those who are truly challenged, handicapped or disabled.

Perhaps there never will be a Shangri La, given our human limitiations.  Evil is always lurking, always looking to exploit others, and must be constantly pursued and conquered.  Freedom is never free...