2020 Election Commentary

[tenbones]

Am I the only one around here that literally does not give a single shit about "Climate Change"?

My research is specifically in green energy, so I have to read a ton of crap about climate change. Fundamentally, I think green energy is a perfectly valid concept: why pollute if you don't have to? It's also important to find renewable sources of energy specifically because computing power is increasing at an astronomical rate and we might literally be unable to power datacenters and whatever else, which means stuff like phones and computers and pretty much anything reliant on the Internet will cease to operate. So it's a big deal, but NOT in the way leftist try to frame the problem.

RE: climate change, it is 100% total horseshit. 100%. Anyone who believes otherwise is a goddamn moron, sorry. I have read so many fucking studies on this shit, and we are essentially helpless to alter the climate in any meaningful way. Yet, everything is based on blaming humans for fucking up the climate.

Anyone remember when cow farts were going to cause the next ice age? That's what passes as legitimate scientific study in the real of climate change, speculating that due to the vast number of cattle used for human consumption releasing methane into the atmosphere, humans are actually responsible for the Earth getting all fucked up. It ALWAYS goes back to how humans are the root cause of any sort of cooling or warming on Earth, never anything else. Ever.

Climate change "science" is nothing more than modern day snake oil and leftist fucktards eat it up like it's candy. Feels over facts! Humans are bad! We need to protect Mother Gaia! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

This was pretty much my take on it too when I started looking into it.

As an aside - my dayjob is primarily in data analytics and reporting (where I work in that other politicized hellhole: Covid research/care). And I can tell you the amount of political bullshit (like lockdowns and handwringing over the deaths and laying them at the feat of Trump) is based on so much bullshit hot-takes by the press and politicians, just from the complexity of the problem (logistics, research, testing, drug-manufacture, human trials etc) I can without having looked at a single scrap of paper on Climate Change tell you not to believe *anything* about Climate Change. (much less most of what you hear about Covid without proper context.)

Climate is so many orders of magnitude more complex than Covid. We have the best minds in the field working on Covid - and there are still a lot of things left to nothing but number-tracking. There is *no* fucking way these pinheads could be right on Climate Change.

Now something I do understand a lot is people. And when you can get people to believe in something that requires nothing but anecdotal evidence for ulterior purposes? Well my friend, you're sitting on a fucking goldmine.

Sure - go green if you can. But until you start putting Nuclear on the table to offset the lack of consistency from "Green energy" - it's unfeasible unless we're all willing to go full Luddite-mode.

Or they figure out how to make those Tokamak's to get through their 10-year testing cycle to bring their efficiency up (but that's been the pipe-dream for decades).

[tenbones]

I'll respond to some other points in a bit, but I have to ask: What is this about? Is it a reference to me, or to someone else here? It seems like a non-sequitur to the current conversation.

Greta Thunberg, the current darling of the watermelon left.

How dare you!



 

HAHAH I actually heard her voice when I read that.

[jhkim]

Sure - go green if you can. But until you start putting Nuclear on the table to offset the lack of consistency from "Green energy" - it's unfeasible unless we're all willing to go full Luddite-mode.

I agree that nuclear is the best clean energy option, and we should be majorly expanding and developing nuclear power. Sadly, it remains unpopular among the wider public, and restricted by backwards attitudes. So I try my best to convince people to believe in the science on this topic - but it is a struggle.

Climate change "science" is nothing more than modern day snake oil and leftist fucktards eat it up like it's candy. Feels over facts! Humans are bad! We need to protect Mother Gaia! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

I do think that far too much of today's political discourse is about feels over facts. Overwhelmingly, most people don't read opposing viewpoints - and start out with a hostile attitude towards them. I would prefer to talk plainly over facts rather than feels. That brings us back to the prior claim:

Further, modern coal-burning plants are some of the most sophisticated things ever created and are essentially carbon-neutral once you factor in all the mitigation protocols during the process. Just like modern diesel engines...which are FAR more environmentally friendly than electric, but you'll never hear a leftist utter such words as that would totally blow holes in their "climate change" agenda.

Source on this? All the scientific sources that I read are roughly in agreement. Modern coal might be cleaner than older coal plants, but they are still the most polluting source out there - of not just carbon dioxide, but also mercury, lead, and particulates. Here's one analysis, for example:

https://noharm-uscanada.org/sites/default/files/documents-files/828/Health_Effects_Coal_Use_Energy_Generation.pdf

Why do "climate change scientists" fly around in jets to conferences all over the world? Why aren't people advocating for putting a stop to major sources of greenhouse gasses like volcanoes and the Amazon rain forest? How does paying higher taxes magically fix the weather?

Maybe you need to stop being such a fucktard.

This is dodging the question and irrelevant name-calling. You claim to care about facts, which I believe - so I'd ask that you engage about them. What is your basis for your claim about coal power?

If you want actual answers to your other questions, I can try to put together some - but they sound more like position statements than genuine questions. For example, magic doesn't exist - so paying higher taxes does not magically fix the weather.

[Spinachcat]

Science has been so compromised by politics and by scientists and science orgs allowing themselves to become political footballs, that I doubt the reputation of "science" is going to improve any time soon.

I recently had dinner with a friend with a physics doctorate whose written books on the history of scientific thought (with ghosting from my girlfriend) and he was breathing fire over how the phrases "settled science" and "the science is settled" are a dangerous poison. 

[VisionStorm]

Somewhat election related, but former Facebook moderator admits that FB specifically targets conservatives and that they don't just censor, but flag content for research purposes to get a feel for what people are discussing, etc.

PS: The video is titled "People Can't CHANGE Their Votes After Latest News...", but they only touch on that briefly and most of the discussion is on biased FB moderation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Qfq8GgreWg

[Spinachcat]

It appears that Taiwan has entered the battlefield.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/

BLM...Biden's Laptop Matters

[EOTB]

There’s a small rhetorical trap in Bannon’s use of that outlet to release the video(s).  Very subtle of him, but a nice touch on his part

[SHARK]

Science has been so compromised by politics and by scientists and science orgs allowing themselves to become political footballs, that I doubt the reputation of "science" is going to improve any time soon.

I recently had dinner with a friend with a physics doctorate whose written books on the history of scientific thought (with ghosting from my girlfriend) and he was breathing fire over how the phrases "settled science" and "the science is settled" are a dangerous poison.

Greetings!

Indeed, my friend. It is boggling that Jhkim seems to be blind to this very real aspect. Science as a discipline--and "Scientists" have taken a huge hit to their credibility and with the public's respect for them over the last thirty years or so. From a variety of topics, from medicine, to "climate change", to food such as eggs and coffee, nutrition, dieting, scientists have been shown to be full of political ideologies and agendas, and always greedy for fucking money and gaining more prestige in their personal careers--all the while being entirely blind to the truth, evidence, and otherwise willing to sacrifice truth for their own personal agendas. It has gotten so bad that scientists are just like doctors or lawyers or psychologists--you can find such "experts" to say whatever the fuck you want them to say for enough money. Everyone knows this is the truth, and the reality--which is why so many people are very skeptical of much of anything that "scientists" claim. We all know they are greedy, cum-guzzling fucks that have sold out to some kind of ideology or just a corporation or business that keeps writing them big fucking checks.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[jhkim]

As a general point, something frustrating to me in the current discussion is that it feels like people aren't willing to stand by their factual claims and engage in criticism over them. consolcwby posted a Fox News list of bad predictions, which I took the trouble to read and analyze, but no one even disputes my criticism. It just gets dropped. brad made a claim that coal power is essentially carbon neutral, but hasn't posted any sources or links to back up that claim.

I believe in facts over feelings, which others seem to agree on. So let's discuss actual facts.

Science has been so compromised by politics and by scientists and science orgs allowing themselves to become political footballs, that I doubt the reputation of "science" is going to improve any time soon.

*Everything* has become tinged by politics at these times. Science has never been completely immune to politics, but it has safeguards against influence that are not in other sources.

The question is, if you reject science, what information sources *do* you regard as reliable? What sources are *not* compromised by politics and used as political footballs?

I recently had dinner with a friend with a physics doctorate whose written books on the history of scientific thought (with ghosting from my girlfriend) and he was breathing fire over how the phrases "settled science" and "the science is settled" are a dangerous poison.

I tend to agree that this is a problem. In these hyper-partisan times, people are almost never willing to admit any doubt or uncertainty. Instead, they are rigidly certain that their side is 100% correct, and the other side is 100% wrong.

That said, some things in science are fairly well understood. Even though it isn't 100%, we have a good idea of vaccine efficacy. Some things are known to 90% or even 99%.

[Hawkwing7423]

Jhkim, I often don't agree with you but do this time. Safer nuclear power should be the future power source, to be supplemented by natural gas, wind, solar, hydro, geothermal as needed. In my understanding, coal releases contaminants, even uranium, into the atmosphere.
However, most leftist politicians I see lump nuclear just as much in "bad power sources" as coal and oil.

My PhD in physics friend (and generally our Dungeon Master) is often far left on many issues but also agrees on nuclear power being used. Unfortunately, the left side of Congress (ex. AOC) and her ilk are dead set opposed. Politicians love to control through fear. Just look at COVID.

[deadDMwalking]

Nuclear power (and nuclear waste) suffer from 'not in my backyard'.  So do landfills. 

Effectively, everyone agrees that nuclear power is great as long as it isn't anywhere near them, specifically.  I don't see red states like Wyoming (or previously ruby red Arizona) supporting measures to store waste within their borders. 

[Shasarak]

Sauce: https://www.foxnews.com/science/10-times-experts-predicted-the-world-would-end-by-now
(I remember all this when I went to school and they are SEVERELY UNDERPLAYING all this shite that was THE GOSPEL TRUTH ACCORDING TO SCIENCE! You know, those evil people whose maths are racist! And are either white, know someone white, wear white lab coats, or are fashists anyway!)

So there's a list that spans multiple decades by "experts" in a variety of fields ranging from metallurgy to climate, looking for predictions that were wrong. And what did they come up with:

#1: A verbal statement on global warming by Noel Brown, who has a PhD in International Relations and served as a director at the U.N.

So do you want us to support the UN or not?  Because we can do this all day nit picking if someone like say António Guterres is even qualified to speak on any subject except for Engineering and even that is questionable considering it has been 50 years since he graduated.

Frankly it is questionable if so called "Climate" Scientists are even real scientists at all.  You may as well call Economists, Hygiene Technicians and Political "Scientists" scientists.

[Pat]

Frankly it is questionable if so called "Climate" Scientists are even real scientists at all.  You may as well call Economists, Hygiene Technicians and Political "Scientists" scientists.

Science is just knowledge, and the methods for acquiring it. So economists and political scientists are scientists.

But it's important to recognize there isn't some monolithic "science" whose techniques apply everywhere. When people think of "science", they tend to think of the hard sciences, specifically physics. Which is based on experiments that involves isolating a single variable, making a prediction beforehand, and then testing it. That's the gold standard, and delivers a high degree of surety about the results.

The problem is that doesn't work in a most fields. You can't test humans like particles, because of ethics. Not to mention, humans are hideously complex, making it impossible to isolate just one factor and control for everything else. Anything that involves human behavior, incidence in human populations, or fitting patterns to historical data is subject to all kinds of biases, imprecision, and other problems that don't exist in physics. The degree of surety is lower. Sometimes much, much lower.

This includes all of economics, political science, and all the other social sciences. Many aspects of medicine fall in this category as well -- what we know about pandemics are based on historical population studies, after all. Even astronomy qualifies -- while it's a lot harder than any of the other fields I mentioned, it's still based on observational data rather than direct experiments (we don't have a lot of black holes in labs). And, yes, the study of climate. The models are based on fitting patterns to past data, and try to control for all significant variables in an inordinately complex and chaotic system.

[Brad]

Nuclear power (and nuclear waste) suffer from 'not in my backyard'.  So do landfills. 

Effectively, everyone agrees that nuclear power is great as long as it isn't anywhere near them, specifically.  I don't see red states like Wyoming (or previously ruby red Arizona) supporting measures to store waste within their borders.

That's why New Jersey exists...there's a nuke power plant about 150 miles from here that provides A LOT of power to three of the largest cities in the US. No one ever talks about it because my guess is they're ignorant of the fact it even exists. The only information you can find about it on the internet is basically a bunch of "environmentalists" bitching about where to put nuclear waste. I think they're burying the crap out in the desert somewhere. Why not just shoot it into the Sun? 100% serious here...

Also, completely ignoring Jhkim from now on as it's apparent his religious views are based on what someone in a lab coat says and not any sort of divine authority.

[Ratman_tf]

I've seen a few critiques about the waste generated by "green" power, like solar and wind. I'm wondering-

1. How much land has to be covered by solar panels to power the entire United States.
2. How much waste is generated by constructing solar panels. I hear it's not inconsequential, and very toxic.
3. How much waste is generated by broken and used up solar panels and wind turbines.

In 5-10 years, are we going to have a "crisis" generated by so-called green energy? Is it going to be a situation where we trade one environmental disaster for another?