Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Dusz
Mar 5, 2005

SORE IN THE ASS that it even exists!

Yiggy posted:

Hows the revolution coming along, Dusz? Do you feel like you're making progress? Of course you're just going to say of course you're not, that it wasn't YOUR solution, just the only one you're willing to timidly stand behind in the thread. When anyone attacks the facileness of your reasoning, you cry that they're disingenuous for asking of you a comprehensive solution, as if your paltry one should suffice as your Bona Fides for making GBS threads on any discussion you don't agree with.

You think you're here on a public mission to kick out soap boxes, but you're swinging so hard you end up right on your back. You think throwing things Your Sledgehammer typed without comment back at him are in anyway meaningful to the thread? He knows he typed that, he'll stand behind it. You're not adding anything with your weak, schoolyard bluster.

So please, get this "no, you!" out of your system so the thread can go back to normal.

I do not think every species of reprehensible moron is worthy of respect. I do not grant it to fascists, I am not going to grant it to you and I am not going to grant it to Your Sledgehammer.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

a lovely poster
Aug 5, 2011

by Pipski

Dusz posted:

I do not think every species of reprehensible moron is worthy of respect. I do not grant it to fascists, I am not going to grant it to you and I am not going to grant it to Your Sledgehammer.

Thanks for your contribution to the thread! Just out of curiosity, how many long winded diatribes do you plan on sharing with us in the name of purifying the infidels?

In other news, the commander of the pacific forces for the US tells us what all of us know:

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/21/commander-of-u-s-pacific-forces-warns-climate-change-is-greatest-threat-to-security/ posted:

“We have interjected into our multilateral dialogue – even with China and India – the imperative to kind of get military capabilities aligned [for] when the effects of climate change start to impact these massive populations,” he said. “If it goes bad, you could have hundreds of thousands or millions of people displaced and then security will start to crumble pretty quickly.”

Lord knows what kind of terrifying actions we'll see taken by world powers like the US, China, etc when climate refugees start knocking at the door.

Dusz
Mar 5, 2005

SORE IN THE ASS that it even exists!

Your Sledhegammer posted:

the deeply tragic but inevitable end result is that billions (most likely including myself) will suffer and die.

Your Sledhegammer posted:

(I think we've overshot the human carrying capacity of the planet)

Your Sledgehammer posted:

We can't stave off collapse, but I hope that in the death throes of this society, some of us can begin to build a foundation for coming generations.

A lovely poster, just answer these two questions. Have you read these three posts? If someone made the following post, would you also defend it?

Your Jewkiller posted:

The Jewish conspiracey is strong. It is Deeply Tragic, but we have to kill all thos ejews.. it is inevitable, hopefully we will be able to Build a Better future because all those dang jews are dead. Every day I cry myself to sleep right after my daily DarkSouls&vegan burger binge

a lovely poster
Aug 5, 2011

by Pipski

Dusz posted:

A lovely poster, just answer these two questions. Have you read these three posts? If someone made the following post, would you also defend it?

I've got a better idea, why don't you take your opinions and share them somewhere that's not in this thread. Honestly, your question is insulting and at the risk of being probated I'm just going to say you're a poo poo poster and leave it at that.

Dusz
Mar 5, 2005

SORE IN THE ASS that it even exists!

a lovely poster posted:

I've got a better idea, why don't you take your opinions and share them somewhere that's not in this thread. Honestly, your question is insulting and at the risk of being probated I'm just going to say you're a poo poo poster and leave it at that.

Why do you think you should be exempt from criticism? I mean, you are defending a pretty radical ideology (cult worship of genocide). You think such an idea doesn't deserve a bit of scrutiny? Now to be fair, that set of ideas is just a pipe dream of a depressive child that is never going to work out except in the lunatic brain of Your Sledgegammer and co but that doesn't mean it should be ignored. So again - do you just not read what they say and blindly defend everything or do you actually believe it as well. In that case, you could at least pretend to take your own genocide-worship seriously and try to defend it when challenged on it, instead of crying about haters like an emo kid who got his favorite band insulted.

The only reason their (your?) idea is being tolerated by anyone because nobody takes a few professional Video Games&E/N posters pontificating genocide seriously, and because sitting around and having people die from inaction, just sounds a lot nicer than killing them yourself. And my question was not an insult - I genuinely get the feeling you would be willing to defend anything, if you are willing to defend this. So now you dodge a simple yes/no question with some moaning about drat dirty haters, what am I to think?

Dusz fucked around with this message at 23:28 on Mar 21, 2013

Paper Mac
Mar 2, 2007

lives in a paper shack
Wow, peak oilers are now a genocide cult I guess. This is truly the thread that keeps on giving.

Yiggy
Sep 12, 2004

"Imagination is not enough. You have to have knowledge too, and an experience of the oddity of life."
I have in my hand a list of ten posters with insufficient piety and faith in the inevitable climate change solutions which are sure to be forthcoming. Failure to accept in this Millenarian hope for our salvation will be construed as tacit conspiracy to mass genocide.

Dusz
Mar 5, 2005

SORE IN THE ASS that it even exists!

Yiggy posted:

I have in my hand a list of ten posters with insufficient piety and faith in the inevitable climate change solutions which are sure to be forthcoming. Failure to accept in this Millenarian hope for our salvation will be construed as tacit conspiracy to mass genocide.

It sure is convenient that the truth to the all universe is that you sit around doing nothing, all while taking a 'principled stand' (sit on an online echo chamber of 3 people and a few hangers-on talking about how wonderful you are).

Even better, it opens a lot of free time for playing Dark Souls&other cool video games, playing guitar and crying on E/N about first world problems. Life's not so bad when you restructure reality to suit your needs.

Your Sledgehammer
May 10, 2010

Don`t fall asleep, you gotta write for THUNDERDOME
Dusz, we all know how you feel about Everyone Else's Opinion. I want to hear your opinion about climate change - like an effortpost about why it has happened, what you think it means, and what we should do about it.

a lovely poster
Aug 5, 2011

by Pipski

Dusz posted:

Hey everybody, I'm a loving idiot!

I tried to make it as painfully clear as possible in the Lesser of two evils thread a few months ago, but nobody is going to take you or your lovely and wrong opinions seriously if you can't stop surrounding them in personal attacks that read like babys first helldump post. Video game posters? Really? From the guy with a Deus Ex avatar? It's really quite hard for me to describe how bad of a poster I think you are when it comes to dealing with people who disagree with you, and honestly, after some thought, I'm just adding you to ignore.

Dusz
Mar 5, 2005

SORE IN THE ASS that it even exists!

Paper Mac posted:

This is truly the thread that keeps on giving.

It sure is, it's like a thread for the twilight zone. It's like a few democratic socialists and 3-4 skinheads with swastika tattoos sitting around talking about the merits of veganism. You think the former would smell the stench eventually but guess not. Or maybe nobody wants to ruin the nice polite atmosphere (a lovely poster: "they're really not so bad once you get to know them, y'know").

a lovely poster
Aug 5, 2011

by Pipski
edit. Not even worth it

Yiggy
Sep 12, 2004

"Imagination is not enough. You have to have knowledge too, and an experience of the oddity of life."
You disagree with people, but the only thing you're willing to do is spew caustic rhetoric peppered with immature, erroneous personal attacks. You have discovered an opinion that doesn't agree with you, but you can't rub two neurons together to do anything beyond spewing bile. You tellingly retreat back to these ad hominems every time because you're unwilling to confront the fact that you haven't provided any sort of the deep solutions you're decrying others for failing to create. Thats no excuse for the highhanded attitude you've brought to this thread, which has lowered the level of discourse considerably.

You are an obnoxious poster who is no doubt destined to keep collecting dings on your rapsheet, where a pattern is already emerging and likely to continue since you obviously cannot help yourself. Hopefully we'll get a permaban someday.

Balnakio
Jun 27, 2008

Dusz posted:

It sure is, it's like a thread for the twilight zone. It's like a few democratic socialists and 3-4 skinheads with swastika tattoos sitting around talking about the merits of veganism. You think the former would smell the stench eventually but guess not. Or maybe nobody wants to ruin the nice polite atmosphere (a lovely poster: "they're really not so bad once you get to know them, y'know").

Nice, there is a thread for this talk it's called "Whatever happened to the American left?"

Dusz
Mar 5, 2005

SORE IN THE ASS that it even exists!

Balnakio posted:

Nice, there is a thread for this talk it's called "Whatever happened to the American left?"

There aren't any primitivists in that thread however. And the ones here have previously rejected to move their diocese into another thread, so I am stuck here if I want to talk about them. Also, what makes you think we should discuss primitivists in a thread about the American left - I know it's been a bad run for the left in recent times, but that's a bit rude, don't you think?

Dusz
Mar 5, 2005

SORE IN THE ASS that it even exists!

a lovely poster posted:

I tried to make it as painfully clear as possible in the Lesser of two evils thread a few months ago, but nobody is going to take you or your lovely and wrong opinions seriously if you can't stop surrounding them in personal attacks that read like babys first helldump post. Video game posters? Really? From the guy with a Deus Ex avatar? It's really quite hard for me to describe how bad of a poster I think you are when it comes to dealing with people who disagree with you, and honestly, after some thought, I'm just adding you to ignore.

You should write a CV and send it to the guys at Stormfront - I am sure they would love to have a guy like you on their side. A guy without the ability to read, with no self-awareness and most importantly - complete disinterest in what he is defending. Added points for having the ability to confuse people by attacking people against human eradication by calling their opinions "lovely and wrong".

Paper Mac
Mar 2, 2007

lives in a paper shack
There's no place to discuss primitivism because every time it comes up it turns into a bunch of howler monkeys flinging poo poo at each other. This thread occasionally has useful discussion of climate science. We get that you don't like doomers, nobody cares. Surely you guys can have a pointless slapfight about who is More Hitler in PMs if it's really gotta happen.

Dusz
Mar 5, 2005

SORE IN THE ASS that it even exists!
Upcoming alt-history action movie: Adolf Hitler and the Three Stooges

Synopsis: The movie takes place in a different world, where the fascists never came to power. We follow a young German boy, who decides to seek his place in the world, and draw it in his own colors, with no fear against the establishment.

Sample Dialogue:

AH and his three buddies are walking down the street, in the middle of a heated discussion

AH: Global capitalism can go bite it. So many guys, like that Stalin fella have tried to do something about it, but I read somewhere that he was an evil cannibal. But I know the Truth, it's the Jews who are behind it. I am thinking of a "Final Solution" of sorts. This final solution is so awesome and amazing it cannot even be described in words, but I can only hope it will give us a better future. Of course, you cannot make a cake without breaking some eggs. That's what my roommate Heinrich always says.

Random passerby: That sounds stupid and wrong, I don't like it

Guy 1 (to passerby): Oh my god, how closed mind can you get? Open your mind up, grasshopper (tokes up for a second, then puts the bong away). Not all of us like raping workers down at the big factory. Are you a closet satanist of some sort?

Guy 2: Haha, nice theory assface. I don't see you writing a 300 page dissertation clearly detailing every single aspect of his theory and your solution for solving every single problem in human history? Get real. Our boy here has done it, and to symbolize his stand, he plans to name it "Struggle..something"

Guy 3: How come you are so rude. Where are your manners? Your tone of voice is inappropriate. Your verbiage is archaic. Your poise is inadequate. We just can't take you seriously, you horrendous Genital of Satan

AH: Haha I love you guys, you're the best. Now let's go down to the LAN cafe and play some World of Warcraft(tm) while strumming some Grateful Dead on our guitar.

(hater with terrible and wrong opinion is left befuddled at the spectacle, as the three stooges and their friend walk down the street, having finally found the Truth, as sung in that Bob Dylan song...)

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

TACD
Oct 27, 2000

Hey so here's some news, it's not earth-shattering news but maybe we can discuss it instead of feeding trolls all day?

quote:

The eruption almost three years ago of an Icelandic volcano added iron to the seas south of the island. But in a blow to supporters of geo-engineering, the natural fertilizer failed to dent carbon dioxide levels.

LONDON – Plankton, tiny marine organisms, are a good way of cleansing the atmosphere of one of the main greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide. To do this they need dissolved iron to help them to grow, and if they lack iron then they cannot do much to reduce CO2 levels.

So the eruption in 2010 of an Icelandic volcano gave scientists a perfect opportunity to see how much the cataclysm helped the plankton by showering them with unexpected clouds of iron.

Their verdict, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters – the volcano certainly helped, but not for long enough to make much difference.

This is a blow to some supporters of geo-engineering, who have suggested that one way to tackle climate change is large-scale seeding of the oceans with iron to stimulate plankton to absorb more carbon dioxide.

The volcano's impact was assessed by a team led by scientists from the UK's National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, who were on a shipboard research expedition in the area at the time.

Air travel to a standstill
The April 2010 eruption of the volcano Eyjafjallajökull hurled clouds of ash several kilometers into the atmosphere, bringing air travel to a standstill across Europe and, in a less noticeable effect, seeding the seas south of Iceland with ash.

In 2007 the team had shown that, after a large spring bloom, phytoplankton in the Iceland Basin failed to grow much because it lacked iron. The scientists wanted to see whether the ash from Eyjafjallajökull supplied enough iron to sustain the spring blooms for longer than usual.

The team found that the five-week eruption supplied enough dissolved iron to increase the number of phytoplankton cells within a region of the North Atlantic stretching across 570,000 square kilometers – or 220,000 square miles, about the size of France.

Short-lived effect
But the effect was short-lived as the extra iron resulted in the rapid removal of biological nitrate, depriving the phytoplankton of nitrogen they also needed.

The team – from Southampton, the University of Cape Town and the Norwegian Institute for Air Research – conducted three research voyages in 2010 investigating ocean productivity in the area affected by ash from Eyjafjallajökull.

They took samples of ash and dust in the atmosphere, and of nutrients in the ocean, and also measured the activity of the phytoplankton.

The north Atlantic Ocean is globally important, as it is a sink for atmospheric carbon dioxide, said Eric Achterberg, chief scientist for the research cruise and lead author of the study.

"A limit to the availability of iron in this region means that the ocean is less efficient in its uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide," he said.

"The additional removal of carbon by the ash-stimulated phytoplankton was therefore only 15 percent to 20 percent higher than in other years, making for a significant but short-lived change to the biogeochemistry of the Iceland Basin."

The National Oceanography Centre develops technology for coastal and deep ocean research. It is based in Southampton and Liverpool.
Source

Looks like seeding the oceans may not be such an effective geo-engineering tactic as once thought. Stratospheric sulfate aerosols and/or space mirrors, anyone?

Paper Mac
Mar 2, 2007

lives in a paper shack

TACD posted:

Hey so here's some news, it's not earth-shattering news but maybe we can discuss it instead of feeding trolls all day?
Source

Looks like seeding the oceans may not be such an effective geo-engineering tactic as once thought. Stratospheric sulfate aerosols and/or space mirrors, anyone?

I think ocean fertilisation has been viewed pretty skeptically for a while now. There's a moratorium on testing, last time I heard, and I think it's generally acknowledged that you end up depleting the water column in the fertilised area of oxygen and generating an anoxic zone, which is problematic for all kinds of other reasons. We really don't have many good sequestration tactics.

Yiggy
Sep 12, 2004

"Imagination is not enough. You have to have knowledge too, and an experience of the oddity of life."

TACD posted:

Hey so here's some news, it's not earth-shattering news but maybe we can discuss it instead of feeding trolls all day?
Source

Looks like seeding the oceans may not be such an effective geo-engineering tactic as once thought. Stratospheric sulfate aerosols and/or space mirrors, anyone?

Sulfurs make me nervous. What are the major technological hurdles for space mirrors? Besides a nonexistent space program to service them and little political will to create and one.

Uranium Phoenix
Jun 20, 2007

Boom.

Squalid posted:

Well I'm not making claims, I'm just poking holes in yours. and the sad fact is one is a lot easier to do than the other, and requires a lot less evidence. My baseless claims are just as likely to be true as your own, and just one could invalidate your reasoning. There really aren't a lot of ideas in this thread. I've been following it from the beginning and it just goes around in circles, the same ideas pop up over and over with little to support them. "There's nothing we can do." "Socialism now." "Trust in the free market." "Just buy a farm." These ideas generally seem designed to fit philosophical or political goals. Serious plans drawn from scientific and historical evidence are scarce and precious, and unfortunately tend to avoid political controversy. I guess most posters just want to vent their frustrations over our current inaction, which is fine, I'm not going to get on everyone's case who complains about capitalism or wants to sperg about fuel efficiency gains in computer controlled cars. Most people aren't really informed enough to have a serious opinion anyway. At least everyone here is on the same side, well except Arkane.
We should all absolutely be critiquing proposed solutions and making sure our analysis and ideas on how to combat climate change are rooted in evidence and plausibility. Most of my evidence on the possibility and effectiveness of mass movements and the plausibility of a new one arising is based on the historical evidence I've already talked about. I would also like to point out that I'm not pushing socialist ideas as a solution to climate change because I'm a socialist. I became a socialist after look at climate change and how to fight it.

We all are (mostly) on the same side, which is why I would like to see this thread move towards looking at what we can do to combat climate change.

Squalid posted:

Your claims just popped out at me in all the noise. I'm sorry for putting you on the spot, but I genuinely thought your ideas were interesting, and specific, and hoped you had more evidence. I want to agree with you. There has actually been a lot of research into the psychology of Global Warming denialists and the psychology of collective action, most of which is pretty depressing for environmentalists. If you'd like I could dig up some journal articles for you. It's been a while since I've read on the subject and I have limited database access now but I'm sure I could find something interesting.
I can give you a rundown of what the claims I'm making that lead me to call for the things I do, and the evidence I do have to support them. Much of my evidence is historical, with the assumption that if human behavior has occurred in the past, similar dynamics can occur in the future.

Human nature is malleable - Some people have said we're doomed to fail because of flaws inherent to human nature. We're too greedy, or maybe too short sighted, too individualistic, not generous enough, only motivated by money or power, or so on. I don't believe that. How we act is very much dependent on culture, how we are raised, and other environmental factors. It's not biological. While there are biological aspects of human nature, none appear to be so firmly rooted and negative that they can't be overcome, and some of them actually are reason to have hope.
  • Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan's Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors looks at the culture and nature of other species, both distantly and closely related to ours. There is good reason to think humans are naturally altruistic, and there is strong evolutionary reasons for group-dependent animals to evolve such altruism. The book also shows how environmental factors can fundamentally change social dynamics in many species.
  • A book (unfortunately I don't remember the title, only the concepts) written by an expert on Native American cultures talked about how many of the native tribes ran their societies for the collective good, and didn't have things like private property. Many thought you couldn't own land, and found the notion ridiculous when confronted by Europeans. Other readings I've seen have supported this notion, which is good evidence that culture and how we are raised are powerful factors in determining altruism vs. greed, individualism vs. collectivism, and much more.
  • This presentation on the growth of human empathy gives me hope, and is rooted in historical evidence. Humans do in fact have an "us vs. them" mentality even at birth (source: conversation with an expert in psychology). However, I think history has shown us that what "us" is has no limit. We've seen how "us" can grow to involve something as large as "all workers" or "all oppressed groups" or even "all humans on the Earth."
  • The idea that people are only motivated by money or other extrinsic things is false, and the claims made in that video have been backed up by what readings I have done in psychology, as well as classes I've taken.
  • A lot of my reasoning behind this idea is looking at other cultures and human history. In short, we can see other cultures are a lot more collectivist in their behavior, as well as many times where people acted for the common good over individualism even in US history.

Mass movements can both arise quickly and create massive change
  • My evidence here is mostly historical or based on recent events. As my previous post covered, there are plenty of examples in history, even recent history, that a few key events can suddenly cause millions of people to take to the streets, and dictators that have clung to power for decades can be toppled within days if not months. We've seen it in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya recently, and we've seen movements like Occupy and the Wisconsin uprising in the US, the heart of global capitalism. While Occupy was clearly flawed, and suppressed by a brutal combination of media lies and police brutality, the anger and dissatisfaction with the current system still exists, and I believe that could be used as a basis for another mass movement. The Wisconsin movement was also derailed, but we shouldn't take the failure of those events as reason to give up hope, but as lessons to learn from for future action. After all, we've seen how learning from actions and continuing to fight has led to gains in history, such as in the Civil Rights Movement or the Labor Movement. The message we should take from Occupy's failure is not that fighting is hopeless, it's that we need to be better organized and use more effective tactics.
  • Historical examples such as the Russian Revolution show that rapid societal change is possible. There are plenty of other examples (such changes not necessarily being good, such as Chili in 1973).

Rapid production shifts in society can occur
  • The planned economies of the USSR industrializing and then producing during World War II and the US's planned economy also during World War II are good evidence for this. If a country gives itself a goal and uses all its resources to move towards it, the effects are astounding. This is how I envision switching to a carbon neutral economy.

Movements in one part of the world can spread rapidly
  • Uprisings in Tunisia inspired uprisings in Egypt, then Occupy and the Arab Spring. Ideas and messages can rapidly spread (think memes), especially in this age of information, and a successful victory in one area can lead to a fight emerging somewhere else.

People become more radical when they move into struggle
  • This is based on readings I've done on the labor movement in the US and readings on other socialist movements. For example, this documentary on striking coal miners in Virginia showed how, as the workers fought for basic things like wage increases, they moved towards more radical ideas. Labor's Giant Step goes into that concept as well (and a lot more). In Greece today, we can see that happening on a much broader scale. As the country's crisis has deepened, people have moved in two directions: To the left (Syriza) and to the right (Golden Dawn).

So yeah, most of my evidence is based on looking at patterns in history to see what is possible and why events occurred, with some evidence based on my understanding of psychology, motivation, and human nature. Based on those ideas and the evidence for them, it seems possible to both create a rapidly spreading movement against climate change, and eventually cause a massive readjustment of production to shift us away from a carbon-based economy to a zero-emissions economy worldwide. Based on how previous movements have become intersectional so that infighting didn't destroy them or cause them to undermine each other, and based on how "us" in the us vs. them can grow to encompass just about anything, I think the best way forward is to link environmentalism, labor, and other movements of oppressed groups (including women, LGBT, minorities such as blacks or Latinos in the US) in solidarity in order to have as broad and as strong a movement as possible. If the movement is targeting something that ultimately is hurting all of those groups, such as capitalism (this presentation gets into some of that, but I can talk more about why I think capitalism is at the root cause of climate change and other problems if you want), then it can appeal to the large number of people we need to make a mass movement successful.

We've seen how mass strikes and mass civil disobedience in history have led to demands being met. With labor included in the environmental movement, we gain the power of the strike. By including other oppressed groups, our base becomes broad enough to support strikes, and make protests and civil disobedience effective. With so many people involved, entire communities can become involved, and when an entire community is supporting, say, a strike, that's when it's most effective. Those tools are paramount to fighting the power of corporations and the state. With evidence I've seen that people in struggle become more radical, I think that such a movement would also become more radical. I think it would be up to left organizations and socialists to try and guide that movement in the best direction. Success at fighting climate change in the US would, I think, inspire people around the world to also fight against climate change.

Obviously I am not claiming this solution is easy. Again, history shows us that a number of factors can cause a mass movement to fail or otherwise go wrong. However, I think the solution I'm proposing is worth looking at, and at the very least, worth working towards. At the very least, we need a green jobs program. However, from what I've seen of trying to use either of the two major political parties to enact change and the difficulties of using elections to cause change, I think a movement is the only way to get that green jobs program. A middle ground here might be agreeing that a social movement is whats needed, but disagreeing that it should be a force for systemic change.


Anyways, I'd actually love to see some articles about the psychology of Global Warming and collective action. I only am just starting to educate myself on psychology. What I have read on the subject, like Naomi Klein's Climate vs. Capitalism that goes into the ideological thought processes behind denialism has been fascinating. I'd definitely like to read more about what psychology and sociology have to say about solving climate change.

satan!!!
Nov 7, 2012

Yiggy posted:

Sulfurs make me nervous. What are the major technological hurdles for space mirrors? Besides a nonexistent space program to service them and little political will to create and one.

Anyone interested in space-based geoengineering will probably enjoy this thread on NSF http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=1849.0 , the op is Kirk Sorensen who founded FliBe energy, he's 'the LFTR guy', and a former NASA and Lockheed Skunkworks employee I believe. Worth noting that since he posted the thread he no longer favours a manned space program like he does in this one.


Anyone who is 'made nervous' by atmospheric sulfates might be interested in this paper from IV, Nathan Myrhvold's (former Microsoft CTO) IP/patent troll company (depending on your opinion) http://intellectualventureslab.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Stratoshield-white-paper-300dpi.pdf

Seeding the atmosphere with sulfates is fairly well understood because they form a significant part of volcano eruptions, which more or less are their own field of science. The most common concern, acid rain, is a non-starter because acid rain forms only if the sulfates are low in the atmosphere - inject them high enough and it can't occur.

Your Sledgehammer
May 10, 2010

Don`t fall asleep, you gotta write for THUNDERDOME

Paper Mac posted:

There's no place to discuss primitivism because every time it comes up it turns into a bunch of howler monkeys flinging poo poo at each other.

Primitivism and other radical environmental beliefs come up often enough in this thread that I decided to go ahead and start a new thread for the sake of the climate discussion in here. Anyone who is interested in the new thread can find it here. Hopefully this one won't just be a bunch of threadshitting and gnashing of teeth over people with :supaburn:different opinions:supaburn: and will actually generate some interesting discussion. I hope some of you will join me.

Paper Mac
Mar 2, 2007

lives in a paper shack

satan!!! posted:

Seeding the atmosphere with sulfates is fairly well understood because they form a significant part of volcano eruptions, which more or less are their own field of science. The most common concern, acid rain, is a non-starter because acid rain forms only if the sulfates are low in the atmosphere - inject them high enough and it can't occur.

Another common concern is the uneven cooling effect. There have been a couple of recent papers published w/ respect to this as I think there are some pretty serious equity concerns in that the equitorial regions don't get much cooling while the temperate zones get much more (IIRC).

Yiggy
Sep 12, 2004

"Imagination is not enough. You have to have knowledge too, and an experience of the oddity of life."

satan!!! posted:

Seeding the atmosphere with sulfates is fairly well understood because they form a significant part of volcano eruptions, which more or less are their own field of science. The most common concern, acid rain, is a non-starter because acid rain forms only if the sulfates are low in the atmosphere - inject them high enough and it can't occur.

My main concern about sulfates is that we'll just use them as a crutch, and it'll allow us to keep burning fossil fuels without feeling the full warming effects. So that any instability in human government or the process which pumps these into the atmosphere could result in catastrophe if stopped suddenly.

The Dipshit
Dec 21, 2005

by FactsAreUseless

Paper Mac posted:

Another common concern is the uneven cooling effect. There have been a couple of recent papers published w/ respect to this as I think there are some pretty serious equity concerns in that the equitorial regions don't get much cooling while the temperate zones get much more (IIRC).

How would that affect weather patterns? I suppose that is a multimillion dollar question though.

Paper Mac
Mar 2, 2007

lives in a paper shack

Claverjoe posted:

How would that affect weather patterns? I suppose that is a multimillion dollar question though.

Yeah, I don't think anyone knows the answer to that well enough to give you an intellectually satisfying answer.

Arkane
Dec 19, 2006

by R. Guyovich

Pendragon posted:

Here's a direct example of how logic doesn't enter into global warming debates: a recent paper showed that our planet was in the middle of a cooling period before the most recent spike in warming.

This is not a good example, actually. That paper contains significant errors with his ocean core data and is hopefully going to be withdrawn (the authors are preparing a response to Steve McIntyre, as was passed along to me when I contacted a reporter -- the last authors to do this eventually withdrew their paper due to errors).

His temperature reconstruction yields a significant downturn in 20th century temperature proxies compared to previous centuries, but he re-dated a large number of proxies which resulted in an uptick.

For example, relevant ocean core proxies which didn't "fit" were deleted:



and proxies were significantly re-dated, some by as many as 1000 years, which resulted in this change:



Perhaps most damning of all, Marcott had DONE THIS RECONSTRUCTION BEFORE in his PhD thesis in 2011, yielding this:



This is the equivalent graph from his published and peer-reviewed report in March 8th's Science:



McIntyre defends his peer reviewers a bit against out and out incompetence, implying that Marcott was being intentionally deceptive:

quote:

The type of analysis that I do is well beyond what peer reviewers do or can reasonably be expected to do. Peer reviewers can’t be expected to vet everything.

Because peer reviewers are not doing an audit, authors therefore need to be held accountable for properly disclosing what they did. As Simonsohn has argued, authors should also disclose the results of analysis attempted as well as their final results.

In this case, the core-top redating was a major change of the method used in the marcott thesis. It evidently yielded very different recent results and this should have been disclosed.

I don’t think that referees reading the manuscript would have been aware of their core top redating enterprise given that their reported methodology on this point was (in my opinion) materially different from what they actually did. It was a difference of this character that caused the retraction of Gergis and I think that Marcott et al will be hard pressed to distinguish their situation from Gergis’.

I also think it is apparent that his motives were in the wrong place given the media blitz that the authors/co-authors did. Compare part of Marcott's response to Steve...

quote:

Thank you for the inquiry. Please note that we clearly state in paragraph 4 of the manuscript that the reconstruction over the past 60 yrs before present (the years 1890 − 1950 CE) is probably not robust because of the small number of datasets that go into the reconstruction over that time frame. ...

...with the NYT's lede on the story:

quote:

Global temperatures are warmer than at any time in at least 4,000 years, scientists reported Thursday, and over the coming decades are likely to surpass levels not seen on the planet since before the last ice age.

That sentence is not even close to correct just based on the paper itself (uncertainty bands), doubly incorrect when you compare it to Marcott's statement about it not being "robust", and triply incorrect when you realize that Marcott significantly skewed his data.

That type of hype is just a lie.

a lovely poster
Aug 5, 2011

by Pipski
Arkane, do you and Dusz plan out when you're going to disrupt this thread? Should we expect him back once you've left again? Can we have five pages without some moron just ruining them? Why are you even bringing up the NYT?

Arkane
Dec 19, 2006

by R. Guyovich

a lovely poster posted:

Arkane, do you and Dusz plan out when you're going to disrupt this thread? Should we expect him back once you've left again? Can we have five pages without some moron just ruining them? Why are you even bringing up the NYT?

Nope, but I appreciate your trolling as always...I was going to post about the study a week ago but figured nobody would care or understand what was going on. Since somebody just brought it up, I thought I could open a discussion on it.

A paper published in Science having to be withdrawn for the author faking results would be kind of a big deal. Unsurprising for the paleoclimatology field, though, I guess.

rivetz
Sep 22, 2000


Soiled Meat
Be careful wasting time responding to Arkane, any time he's backed into a corner you know what happens

Arkane posted:

I had a few replies written in Firefox but lost them all when I had to reinstall the software.

Darn Firefox!

Arkane
Dec 19, 2006

by R. Guyovich

rivetz posted:

Be careful wasting time responding to Arkane, any time he's backed into a corner you know what happens


Darn Firefox!

Could be a good point if not for the fact that I rewrote the response to the guy from scratch. Anyone else have flaccid trolls they want to whip out?

Pohl
Jan 28, 2005




In the future, please post shit with the sole purpose of antagonizing the person running this site. Thank you.

Arkane posted:

Anyone else have flaccid trolls they want to whip out?

You are already posting in a climate change thread, why would we need more flaccid trolls? :iiam:

rawdog pozfail
Jan 2, 2006

by Ralp
Arkane actually posted a reasoned position, is anyone able to respond to them with anything other than ad hominem attacks? I lurk this thread because there are several knowledgeable, intelligent people on both sides who come in with interesting (sometimes) well reasoned points of view. But as of late? What happened to "report it and move on"?

Yes, I realize that could apply to this post, I'd just really like to see some good faith responses to Arkane's last post.

Pohl
Jan 28, 2005




In the future, please post shit with the sole purpose of antagonizing the person running this site. Thank you.

Holy Calamity! posted:

Arkane actually posted a reasoned position, is anyone able to respond to them with anything other than ad hominem attacks? I lurk this thread because there are several knowledgeable, intelligent people on both sides who come in with interesting (sometimes) well reasoned points of view. But as of late? What happened to "report it and move on"?

Yes, I realize that could apply to this post, I'd just really like to see some good faith responses to Arkane's last post.

It doesn't matter if he is right or wrong in this particular instance. Historically he has been anti-science, though he does manage to drag up the relevant link now and then. People don't want to engage him because he turns the entire conversation into a shitshow.

So what if one group of scientists screwed up their data? Should we ceremonially toss out all of climate science based upon that revelation? Probably not, but that is what Arkane wants us to do. This really is a game, and it is a game with consequences.

In good faith I would say that Arkane's post means nothing. He is readily refuting one study while the overwhelming science says that, yes, this is a reality. Exactly where did the scientific method break down where one or two or three.... etc controversial studies mean that an entire scientific and theoretical theory of a field is suddenly in question?

Uranium Phoenix
Jun 20, 2007

Boom.

I haven't heard about that particular paper or the controversy around it before, so I'm not entirely sure what's going on there. That said,

Arkane posted:

A paper published in Science having to be withdrawn for the author faking results would be kind of a big deal. Unsurprising for the paleoclimatology field, though, I guess.
A single paper on climate science being retracted actually wouldn't be that big of a deal (or shouldn't be, at least). Papers get retracted quite a bit and some of the deceptions definitely bad, though I think that's a symptom of publish or perish dynamics. I can't find anything showing an epidemic of climate related papers being retracted.

The implication that paleoclimatologists routinely lie, then, needs to be substantiated with evidence. A single paper being retracted should be taken as no more than what it is.

Fox Cunning
Jun 21, 2006

salt-induced orgasm in the mouth
I think this brilliant talk speaks for itself. Basically the answer to a lot of problems is related to cattle.

http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change.html

satan!!!
Nov 7, 2012

Fox Cunning posted:

I think this brilliant talk speaks for itself. Basically the answer to a lot of problems is related to cattle.

http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change.html

I loved this. I want it to be true so badly because I love beef.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Kafka Esq.
Jan 1, 2005

"If you ever even think about calling me anything but 'The Crab' I will go so fucking crab on your ass you won't even see what crab'd your crab" -The Crab(TM)
Apparently, the guy is a wild self-promoter and has very little in the way of successful examples of this. I also want it to be true, though.

edit: if someone is really interested, you can compare the detractors with the peer-reviewed stuff in their portfolio.

Kafka Esq. fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Mar 23, 2013

  • Locked thread