|
Triglav posted:Okay. We all agree: Capitalism is good. No. No we don't agree. You're trying to say that capitalism is completely and totally good and has no bad sides. We're pointing out that completely unregulated capitalism is a disaster. A hybrid economy is, in fact, what actually functions best.
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 21:20 |
|
|
Wanderer posted:This is a mirror of an article on Forbes. The guy who was engineering artificial leaves has now come up with a bacterium that eats hydrogen and atmospheric CO2 and turns them into alcohols, providing a carbon-neutral fuel source. Since we still require a certain amount of these around to survive, and the potential for runaway and mutation is high with a bacterium, this scares the poo poo out of me. 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
Triglav posted:Okay. We all agree: Capitalism is good. No we don't. Regulated capitalism CAN be good. Unregulated "Free Market" (which is a misnomer if ever there was one) is bad.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
Rime posted:Since we still require a certain amount of these around to survive, and the potential for runaway and mutation is high with a bacterium, this scares the poo poo out of me. Considering that according to the article they feed on hydrogen, they'd have a hard time finding a place in nature where there's enough hydrogen to cause any significant impact. Also "The proofs came in yesterday ... it's going to be embargoed by Science" probably means it's bullshit.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:A hybrid economy is, in fact, what actually functions best. Agreedo 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
pidan posted:Considering that according to the article they feed on hydrogen, they'd have a hard time finding a place in nature where there's enough hydrogen to cause any significant impact. Also "The proofs came in yesterday ... it's going to be embargoed by Science" probably means it's bullshit. ....that's not what that sentence means. Science is a magazine. Triglav posted:Agreedo Why are you being a dipshit on purpose in the climate change thread, you will end up being lumped in with people like Arkane. I can't imagine anyone would want that for themselves.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
pidan posted:Considering that according to the article they feed on hydrogen, they'd have a hard time finding a place in nature where there's enough hydrogen to cause any significant impact. Also "The proofs came in yesterday ... it's going to be embargoed by Science" probably means it's bullshit. Well, it's not bullshit. I mean, the A-B-E process is fairly well known to be a (mostly inefficient) way of producing alcohol fuels and acetone in industrial quantities in the beginning of the 20th century. I seem to recall Japan resorting to it for aircraft fuel during the oil shortage caused by the second world war. Butanol and butanol/ethanol mixes are especially interesting as a fossil fuel substitute, because they only differ slightly from our current fuel types, at least in terms of mechanical function. Of course, the big problem with the A-B-E process is that it utilizes anaerobic bacteria and produces CO2, making industrial production even to a fraction of the world's oil production costly and difficult. If this new bio-engineered bacterium actually produces those quantities of butanol and ethanol while consuming CO2, it could change that massively. Not only would production of biofuels using a liquid-based process not use up valuable farm land, if it could be done using waste water it wouldn't necessarily be too water-intensive, making it viable in a lot of third world countries with not a lot of excess fresh water. At the same time, I'm doubtful this process doesn't take chemical/fertilizer chemical or hydrocarbon input, there's no way this bacteria lives on sunlight, hydrogen and C02 alone. If it works as advertised, it is a big deal, but even then we won't se it in industrial use until oil becomes a lot more expensive. I figure ten years at the very least. But it is a very cool concept, and absolutely a fantastic (theoretical) solution to getting off fossil fuels.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 08:12
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:Why are you being a dipshit on purpose in the climate change thread, you will end up being lumped in with people like Arkane. I can't imagine anyone would want that for themselves. If I recall correctly, I asked about dirty energy's pivotal role in improving the standard of living of those in developing countries. People said socialism would fix that. Further questions led to everyone explaining that they meant welfare capitalism. It's sorted now.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 08:36
|
|
|
Triglav posted:If I recall correctly, You don't. Triglav posted:I asked about dirty energy's pivotal role in improving the standard of living of those in developing countries. You didn't. That was the thing before. This topic came from this: Triglav posted:Unless your ideal standard of living is subsistence farming, I would say capitalism has improved things. Which presupposes that capitalism is the answer to your original question, of which I (and some other people ITT) disagree. Triglav posted:People said socialism would fix that. They didn't. I said: Nice piece of fish posted:[...] The thing to be discussing is a comparison between neoliberalist capitalism and western/northern european democratic socialism, [...] And I didn't see anyone saying socialism was a prerequisite for fighting global warming, nor that it would fix everything forever. Triglav posted:Further questions led to everyone explaining that they meant welfare capitalism. It's sorted now. They did? I seem to read a lot of CommieGIR posted:Jesus gently caress you are dense. Nobody is arguing replacing capitalism as a MARKET FORCE with Socialism. They are arguing for the same Socialist Democracy that we've had since 1940. Just stop. You are arguing against something no one is saying. The US has a form of welfare capitalism now. Doesn't seem to help. Triglav posted:Okay. We all agree: Capitalism is good. Way to move the goalposts, buddy. The question was whether or not capitalism (and just capitalism and the market forces therein) was responsible for increased standard of living. History, and common sense would indicate that it is not, seeing as the market mechanisms behind capitalism have existed for centuries if not millennia, and changes in standard of living have fluxuated wildly throughout history on the basis of education, medicine and socially responsible redistribution of wealth, etc. Not so much how wealthy the nobles were. TL;DR: Quit being an rear end if you want me to listen to you. Disingenuous bullshit gets you no friends here.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 11:32
|
|
|
Triglav posted:welfare capitalism 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 13:39
|
|
|
Luckily for humanity we dont have to do anything, God will save us.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 14:16
|
|
|
Whenever someone starts ranting about capitalism, that's your cue to press the button and drop them into the crocodile pit.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:....that's not what that sentence means. Science is a magazine. I know, but I parsed that sentence as "Science won't print it", which is not encouraging. Quacks exist. Nice piece of fish posted:Well, it's not bullshit. I mean, the A-B-E process is fairly well known to be a (mostly inefficient) way of producing alcohol fuels and acetone in industrial quantities in the beginning of the 20th century. Yeah, that's just about what I thought, too. There's two levels to this question which are a) does this bacterium actually do what it's supposed to, and b) does it work without completely uneconomical energy inputs. Having a bacterium that eats pollution and shits fuel would be pretty useful, but won't actually help with global warming if it can only work with the massive industrial basis provided by fossil fuels.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
pidan posted:I know, but I parsed that sentence as "Science won't print it", which is not encouraging. Quacks exist. They get the hydrogen from water. Science isn't publishing the article for a few weeks while the peer review process takes place. This doesn't solve AGW because it makes a fuel which is then burnt and the carbon goes back to the atmosphere. The process is carbon neutral though. It remains to be seen if it can scale well.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Rime posted:Since we still require a certain amount of these around to survive, and the potential for runaway and mutation is high with a bacterium, this scares the poo poo out of me. pidan posted:Considering that according to the article they feed on hydrogen, they'd have a hard time finding a place in nature where there's enough hydrogen to cause any significant impact. Also "The proofs came in yesterday ... it's going to be embargoed by Science" probably means it's bullshit. They use fresh water for hydrogen. There are already bacteria in the wild that do this. These new bacteria are using existing genes; think of them as a cross-breed between natural bacteria that eat hydrogen and natural bacteria that produce alcohol. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfate-reducing_bacteria The main reason they aren't going to take over the environment is that they aren't efficient enough to compete with wild bacteria. These exotic metabolisms steal energy from the organism to make a useful byproduct for humans which is to the detriment of the host bacteria when compared to something more conventional.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:They get the hydrogen from water. Science isn't publishing the article for a few weeks while the peer review process takes place. Wait they published a press release pumping up an article that hasn't even finished peer review? That's both sketchy and unethical.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
If nothing else, this article did answer a question I've had for a bit: why the hell are so many renewable/carbon-neutral energy solutions test-driving themselves in rural India, of all places? Because it means they don't have to compete with an existing infrastructure. Oh, okay.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:If nothing else, this article did answer a question I've had for a bit: why the hell are so many renewable/carbon-neutral energy solutions test-driving themselves in rural India, of all places? That's actually one of the big advantages of easy to set up, simple, and cheap renewable things. Doesn't matter how remote the area is you just need to get the thing there once. No shipping fuel; just set up the solar panels and hey look, electricity! Radical.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Wait they published a press release pumping up an article that hasn't even finished peer review? That's both sketchy and unethical. We're talking about a picture of an article from forbes.com, not a press release and anyway in specifically says that it "will appear" in Science soon.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:We're talking about a picture of an article from forbes.com, not a press release and anyway in specifically says that it "will appear" in Science soon. It is still super sketchy to be grandstanding about your paper before it's even available. That Forbes article couldn't talk to anyone but the authors so we have no idea what the paper really says or how realistic this is. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2016/05/29/harvard-scientist-engineers-a-superbug-that-inhales-co2-produces-energy/#49b257fa5a9d That's the real article btw. Also I'm pretty sure Forbes has no editorial control over posts like this.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:It is still super sketchy to be grandstanding about your paper before it's even available. That Forbes article couldn't talk to anyone but the authors so we have no idea what the paper really says or how realistic this is. You're a real retard.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:You're a real retard. What? For being skeptical of claims made about new technology when we can't read the research? Generally authors aren't supposed to tell the press that their paper has been accepted before it is published but idk the specific rules at Science. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 20:22 on May 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:If nothing else, this article did answer a question I've had for a bit: why the hell are so many renewable/carbon-neutral energy solutions test-driving themselves in rural India, of all places? Yeah, seems smart. You get to bring service to an unserviced area while also testing a new system's efficacy.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
Talking to the press before peer review is unethical and irresponsible, and at my institute that will net you swift discipline or packing. Science doesn't need more black eyes from professors and researchers pulling their findings after already promising something to the press. It's all to common that crooks like Arkane twist the rigor of peer reviewed research by citing scandal or conflicting data. Yes, publications sometimes get poo poo wrong and a theory has to change, but every time that happens or there's a scandal with some scientist in Yugobumfuckia announcing amazing results only to later be found a sham in peer review, the public loses faith in science. You're left with a media that's now gun-shy about standing behind clear results like "AGW is real," and talking heads then give airtime to the real hacks who deny climate change because, in science, "you never know." Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 12:01 on May 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 11:58
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Talking to the press before peer review is unethical and irresponsible, and at my institute that will net you swift discipline or packing. In fact, the further researchers stay from the news, the better. Media, especially in its modern form, its a terrible method for validating/invalidating scientific study.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 12:06
|
|
|
Media relationships are complex, and some of the most brilliant people I have met are actually institute communications / PR guys. I don't think alienating the press is the answer, but I also am convinced that the answer is complex enough that I can't comment on it.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 12:10
|
|
|
Media has also been deviating pretty far from actually telling people what the gently caress is going on and just obsesses over ratings. That and all the people that want to sell you something get their hands in the media too. A scientist notices that people who eat X thing have a 5% lower risk of Y cancer. Somebody in marketing reads that study and says "what's that? X cures cancer!?! Let's put X in all our food!!!" Then there are SUPER SPECIAL MEDIA REPORT SUPER FOOD DISCOVERED THAT CURES CANCER!!!!! Then the scientist is just like "uuuhhhh guys that's not what I meant at all" and the media crucifies him for being a liar. "You said it cured cancer!!!" Well no, all he said was that according to the data he gathered people who eat X thing have a very slightly lower risk of Y cancer. Didn't say why, didn't verify it yet, just "hey I think this chunk of information is something we should pay a bit more attention to."
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 12:13
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Media relationships are complex, and some of the most brilliant people I have met are actually institute communications / PR guys. I don't think alienating the press is the answer, but I also am convinced that the answer is complex enough that I can't comment on it. You kind of have to now. Media jumps over whatever is popular at the moment, and spins it into oblivion.  This is not to mention groups like Natural News, FreeThought groups and others that then spin it even further into loving tinfoil hat poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 12:16
|
|
|
A few years ago a Colleague in my research group got her work published in Nature, and of course there was immediately a Daily Mail article on it a week later which mangled it so badly it was gut-wrenching.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 14:25
|
|
|
Some years ago I received a death threat over some very minor, very specific, nonsense that wormed it's way through the media like that comic describes. It's amazing that they had the motivation to look at the original author's name, pick one out, get an email address, etc, but not read the very simply abstract.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 15:00
|
|
|
Kudaros posted:Some years ago I received a death threat over some very minor, very specific, nonsense that wormed it's way through the media like that comic describes. It's amazing that they had the motivation to look at the original author's name, pick one out, get an email address, etc, but not read the very simply abstract. Print out that email and frame it.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 15:46
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Kudaros posted:Some years ago I received a death threat over some very minor, very specific, nonsense that wormed it's way through the media like that comic describes. It's amazing that they had the motivation to look at the original author's name, pick one out, get an email address, etc, but not read the very simply abstract. blowfish posted:Print out that email and frame it. Also post t here because I'm interested now.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
I'm not going to give all the details but it was something along the lines of "you are trying to destroy the industry which powers this nation, liberals liek (this typo was there) you must be silenced, you will be stopped, i will seek you out (exact phrasing)" Years later I'm still waiting on some obese moron on a rascal with a Gadsen flag to show up and try to back over me. *beep, beep, beep* "I'll kill you!!!" I didn't (and still don't) think it's worth taking seriously. The particular work was on making the transparent electrode element of a solar cell with materials that aren't FTO or ITO (Fluorine or Indium Tin Oxide). It was a super minor contribution, in a mediocre journal, pushed by a mediocre lab to mediocre university PR office into a mediocre local media outlet. Some piece of poo poo undergrad (at the time) is the nation's number one energy job threat. Clearly. I want my death threats to be poetic and written well. Those will go on my CV. In all seriousness I gotta stop generalizing people like that. This person was probably impacted by the coal mines drying up or something. Also I'm not a liberal, I'm a leftist 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
Speaking of leftism, I'm curious what you all think of this article, "Why Open Markets are our Best Hope in Tackling Climate Change": http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/06/01/why-open-markets-are-our-best-hope-in-tackling-climate-change/ Climate Home or something tweeted it. I'm skeptical of all of these Climate X news aggregator groups. Pretty sure they contribute nothing and are trying to make a buck. I'm skeptical when anyone states that "hey, let the markets solve the problem" and the article seems to be primarily concerned with measuring things via money -- with the exception of global transport emissions. quote:First, there must be an end to trade distortions that enable unsustainable activities or result in unnecessary waste. Fossil fuel-subsidies have no place in a climate-friendly economy and should be eliminated without undue delay. Bolding mine. One thorny issue that is never brought up by these guys is the other dimension to free trade agreements -- their effects on jobs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
Kudaros posted:Speaking of leftism, I'm curious what you all think of this article, "Why Open Markets are our Best Hope in Tackling Climate Change": http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/06/01/why-open-markets-are-our-best-hope-in-tackling-climate-change/ I don't think that person understands what free trade actually is and is secretly a libertarian who hates regulation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
The article assumes greentech isn't subsidized and that dropping tariffs wouldn't benefit E&P companies. If there were a more efficient way to transport goods than freight, people would be using it. If subsidies and tariffs didn't support regional interests, there wouldn't be any. If the most environmentally friendly, industrially friendly, and socially friendly choices were all the same, regionally and globally, we wouldn't need politicians.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
Bloomberg with an opinion piece on the case against alarmism...bit simplistic but it conveys the basic point: http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-06-01/global-warming-alarmists-you-re-doing-it-wrong
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Bloomberg with an opinion piece on the case against alarmism...bit simplistic but it conveys the basic point: Really, is Megan McArdle the best you can do? quote:This lesson from economics is essentially what the "lukewarmists" bring to discussions about climate change. They concede that all else equal, more carbon dioxide will cause the climate to warm. But, they say that warming is likely to be mild unless you use a model which assumes large positive feedback effects. Because climate scientists, like the macroeconomists, can’t run experiments where they test one variable at a time, predictions of feedback effects involve a lot of theory and guesswork. I do not denigrate theory and guesswork; they are a vital part of advancing the sum of human knowledge. But when you’re relying on theory and guesswork, you always want to leave plenty of room for the possibility that your model's output is (how shall I put this?) … wrong. Puuhhhh-lease. quote:The arguments about global warming too often sound more like theology than science. Oh, the word “science” gets thrown around a great deal, but it's cited as a sacred authority, not a fallible process that staggers only awkwardly and unevenly toward the truth, with frequent lurches in the wrong direction. I cannot count the number of times someone has told me that they believe in “the science,” as if that were the name of some omniscient god who had delivered us final answers written in stone. For those people, there can be only two categories in the debate: believers and unbelievers. Apostles and heretics. The science is very clear. VERY. clear. Sorry it wasn't clear enough for noted Libertarian Megan McArdle . Her entire article reads like a giant shifting goal post. For bonus laughs, here's her article on Competitive Enterprise Institute for being subpoenaed for misleading people on climateology: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-04-08/subpoenaed-into-silence-on-global-warming  Megan is very wishy washy. She jumps between saying she supports efforts on Climate Change, to denouncing investigations into groups with known agenda's against climatology groups. Like a true Libertarian. "The science isn't wrong, but it's totally wrong. Why are you guys raising the alarm and calling out think tanks with ties to Petroleum Companies? C'mon guys, don't be dicks. Why can't the free market and climate work together?" CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 04:07 on Jun 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Megan is very wishy washy. She jumps between saying she supports efforts on Climate Change, to denouncing investigations into groups with known agenda's against climatology groups.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 21:20 |
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:What makes a hack a hack is they'll talk a big game about principles, but waffle endlessly when it comes to actual facts. What's most telling is she cautions that the climate models may be wrong, but then completely ignores facts that the models are matching reality so far.  You can't have it both ways Megan. Either the models are right and proven right by the evidence, or the models are wrong and proven wrong by the evidence. Which is it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 21:09
|
|