I intend to try when possible to highlight people who deal with "hot button" issues not to advocate, but to make a balanced presentation. See link below.
Yeah, the story is from the NY Post, so step 1: ignore the headline; step 2: read the whole thing; like EVERY other newspaper, they might put stuff they like first and bury the rest at the bottom; step 3: cogitate.
I think a fair synopsis of the substances is as follows: Dr. Steven E. Koonin, who served as undersecretary for science in the Department of Energy during the Obama administration, says "Yes, it's true that the globe is warming, and that humans are exerting a warming influence upon it. But beyond that
Bob,
I am curious, what exactly qualifies Steven E. Koonin as an expert on climate change? I mean if you wanted to honestly enlighten us and not simply push the right-wing propaganda that tries and deny the science of climate change this man must have a strong background that qualifies him as an expert on climate science. So what makes in an expert on climate change, especially compared to others? Does he have a degree in climate science or meteorology? Has he worked in the weather or climate change fields? Has he done significant research on climate changes and if so has it resulted in peer-reviewed papers?
Edi to add- The NY Post is part of the right-wing propaganda network I frequently refer to. So now is your chance to show the Post does more than push right-wing propaganda, but rather gives thoughtful well balanced and fair commentary by proven experts
Rich,
Trying to be friendly here - do you realize how much you use "right wing propaganda" in your replies. The minute you impose that term, readers eyes glaze over and really don't read the rest of your post. At that point you have already stated you are not willing to listen or read.
The best example I can give you is if your wife, girlfriend or significant other asks you "does this outfit make me look fat?" The reply is "no, but" as soon as the but comes out of the mouth everything else is ignored.
Do yourself a favor and lose the term.
Quote from: MightyGiants on April 26, 2021, 03:04:19 PM
Bob, I am curious, what exactly qualifies Steven E. Koonin as an expert on climate change? Does he have a degree in climate science or meteorology? Has he worked in the weather or climate change fields? Has he done significant research on climate changes and if so has it resulted in peer-reviewed papers?
Rich: As stated in my post, Dr. Koonin served as undersecretary for science in the Department of Energy during the Obama administration.
I really don't mind you being skeptical, but it's easy enough to look up.... Born in Brooklyn, New York City, Koonin received his Bachelor of Science from the California Institute of Technology and his Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology under the supervision of Arthur Kerman in the MIT Center for Theoretical Physics. In 1975, Koonin joined the faculty of the California Institute of Technology as an assistant professor of theoretical physics, and served as the institute's provost from 1995 to 2004. In 2004, Koonin joined BP as their chief scientist where he was responsible for guiding the company's long-range technology strategy, particularly in alternative and renewable energy sources. In 2009, he was appointed the U.S. Department of Energy's second Senate-confirmed Under Secretary for Science serving from May 19, 2009, to November 18, 2011. He left that post in November 2011 for a position at the Institute for Defense Analyses. On April 23, 2012, Koonin was named director of NYU's Center for Urban Science and Progress (CUSP). He has served on numerous advisory bodies for the National Science Foundation, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Energy and its various national laboratories, such as the JASON defense advisory group, which he has chaired. Koonin's research interests have included theoretical nuclear, many-body, and computational physics, nuclear astrophysics, and global environmental science.
The book is "significant research on climate changes" which you seek... and the "peer-review" will be the response of other scientists to the book... or you could buy a copy, read it, and let us know what you think.
Bob
Quote from: philo43 on April 26, 2021, 03:17:56 PM
Rich,
Trying to be friendly here - do you realize how much you use "right wing propaganda" in your replies. The minute you impose that term, readers eyes glaze over and really don't read the rest of your post. At that point you have already stated you are not willing to listen or read.
The best example I can give you is if your wife, girlfriend or significant other asks you "does this outfit make me look fat?" The reply is "no, but" as soon as the but comes out of the mouth everything else is ignored.
Do yourself a favor and lose the term.
Bob,
I am having a hard time wrapping my head around your claim of "trying to balance" while posting from a well-known right-wing propaganda site and to answer the question you refused to the claims are made by a man who is not a qualified expert on climate change. I know you are a smart man with a keen mind. So I have a hard time believing that you are not aware that agreeing with conservative views does not make one a qualified expert. Before you say it, the old "both sides do it" claim, please show me the liberal counterpart to Covid experts like the My Pillow guy or that crazy doctor who believed in demons and aliens.
As I have said before and I will say again it's not the opinion, but the quality of the opinion. I am beyond sure that one will not get a solid and well-balanced understanding of climate change from the NY Post.
Quote from: Bob In PA on April 26, 2021, 03:31:50 PM
Rich: As stated in my post, Dr. Koonin served as undersecretary for science in the Department of Energy during the Obama administration.
I really don't mind you being skeptical, but it's easy enough to look up.... Born in Brooklyn, New York City, Koonin received his Bachelor of Science from the California Institute of Technology and his Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology under the supervision of Arthur Kerman in the MIT Center for Theoretical Physics. In 1975, Koonin joined the faculty of the California Institute of Technology as an assistant professor of theoretical physics, and served as the institute's provost from 1995 to 2004. In 2004, Koonin joined BP as their chief scientist where he was responsible for guiding the company's long-range technology strategy, particularly in alternative and renewable energy sources. In 2009, he was appointed the U.S. Department of Energy's second Senate-confirmed Under Secretary for Science serving from May 19, 2009, to November 18, 2011. He left that post in November 2011 for a position at the Institute for Defense Analyses. On April 23, 2012, Koonin was named director of NYU's Center for Urban Science and Progress (CUSP). He has served on numerous advisory bodies for the National Science Foundation, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Energy and its various national laboratories, such as the JASON defense advisory group, which he has chaired. Koonin's research interests have included theoretical nuclear, many-body, and computational physics, nuclear astrophysics, and global environmental science.
The book is "significant research on climate changes" which you seek... and the "peer-review" will be the response of other scientists to the book... or you could buy a copy, read it, and let us know what you think.
Bob
So in short, he is an expert on physics and energy but not an expert on climate change. Bob, maybe I am being unfair because I have such a strong science background, but science and fields are not interchangeable. This man is not a qualified expert in the field of climate science, not by a long shot.
Rich: The first sentence of my original post says it all. I think Dr. Koonin is making a balanced presentation of the issue. Clearly, you disagree.
In writing his book, he studied all of the research with which you agree, and all of it with which you disagree, and he reached scientific conclusions which sound very "middle-of-the-road" to me.
He acknowledges the main premise of "climate change" clearly and without equivocation. The fact that his views sound like propaganda to you says more about your lack of scientific qualifications that his, IMO.
Further, to me, the fact that you assume he is "bad" and his views are "wrong" just because the article about his book was in the NY Post sounds like you're suffering from a severe attack of prejudice.
I suggest you review your primer on the scientific method.
Bob
PS. In your prior post, you erroneously addressed your first remark to me, which it was philo43 who made the post to which you were replying.
Quote from: Bob In PA on April 26, 2021, 04:00:35 PM
Rich: The first sentence of my original post says it all. I think Dr. Koonin is making a balanced presentation of the issue. Clearly, you disagree.
In writing his book, he studied all of the research with which you agree, and all of it with which you disagree, and he reached scientific conclusions which sound very "middle-of-the-road" to me.
He acknowledges the main premise of "climate change" clearly and without equivocation. The fact that his views sound like propaganda to you says more about your lack of scientific qualifications that his, IMO.
Further, to me, the fact that you assume he is "bad" and his views are "wrong" just because the article about his book was in the NY Post sounds like you're suffering from a severe attack of prejudice.
I suggest you review your primer on the scientific method.
Bob
PS. In your prior post, you erroneously addressed your first remark to me, which it was philo43 who made the post to which you were replying.
I am going to give an example of how being an expert in a similar field doesn't make one an expert in adjoining fields. My father spent his whole life as a pump engineer. He has patents his name, wrote books, has taught classes, had a regular column in a pump magazine and in some aspects of pumps I would venture to say he is one of the world's foremost experts. Yet, just because he is an experienced licensed mechanical engineer you wouldn't want him designing the wings of a plane you intended to fly in. Science and engineering are very specialized. You need to appreciate that fact.
If you want to learn about a scientific or medical topic you go to the QUALIFIED EXPERTS. You don't go to the NY Post and listen to someone practicing outside his fields of expertise.
Quote from: MightyGiants on April 26, 2021, 04:06:25 PM
I am going to give an example of how being an expert in a similar field doesn't make one an expert in adjoining fields. My father spent his whole life as a pump engineer. He has patents his name, wrote books, has taught classes, had a regular column in a pump magazine and in some aspects of pumps I would venture to say he is one of the world's foremost experts. Yet, just because he is an experienced licensed mechanical engineer you wouldn't want him designing the wings of a plane you intended to fly in. Science and engineering are very specialized. You need to appreciate that fact.
If you want to learn about a scientific or medical topic you go to the QUALIFIED EXPERTS. You don't go to the NY Post and listen to someone practicing outside his fields of expertise.
Rich: I totally agree that there may be better experts (more focused for a longer period of time on the issue) but that alone does not disqualify his opinion.
IMO, this guy has enough of the "right stuff" to have his views seriously considered, examined, dissected, and peer-reviewed.
Somewhere else, you correctly mentioned expert-witness qualifications & I forgot to reply. This guy passes the test; his testimony is admissible, IMO (the weight to be given to it would be for the jury to decide).
Bob
I will probably regret dragging myself into this discussion, but what the hey. Maybe it will help time pass faster until the Giants are on the clock Thursday night!
Let me start by discussing something we use in engineering called DOE "design of experiments", a method used to determine which combination of variables can create an ultimate predicted outcome. There are a couple types of DOE, the most common and the one I always used: a "traditional" (full factorial experiment) and a quicker, but less accurate method known as the Taguchi method.
To keep it as simple as I can, imagine trying to come up with the ultimate combination of variables for producing tomatoes on a grand scale: Some of the variables include soil composition, soil wetness/dryness, external factors like sun light, wind, humidity, fertilizers, natural chemical elements in the ground, geographic location, etc. A person who doesn't use a designed experiment tries different things (hit and miss method) and might conclude that "this particular fertilizer, in this particular soil, with this particular humidity, etc., produces the ultimate combination for optimum growth, taste, and texture even though it is not the optimal tomato and it cannot be proven that they have found "the best", it's just the best they've found so far. However, using designed experiments can help an engineer come up with an EXACT optimal combination of factors in record time by creating a grid with all the factors (variables) listed and then does what is known as "confounding" the variables. This means changing one or two of the variables and run the test, then do it again while confounding other variables. Using an algorithm and matrix algebra, the ultimate combination can be deciphered in record time after about 5 or 6 confounding attempts and if your math is correct, it will be optimal. All OEM companies producing extremely high tech products use DOE all the time - their future depends on it. As a long time user of DOE, it is always surprising to discover the optimal combination because just using common sense makes one think that one variable controls most of the outcome when just the opposite is true.
Herein lies the rub with climate change (which I do not deny, I just think it's highly politicized to give advantage to certain political groups who are only concerned with cementing power and control over the masses) is that politicians have determined that "carbon dioxide is the monster that must be slain", even though, CO2 is the lifeblood of trees, plants, and most life forms.
Now let's look at some of the variables (factors) that effect climate:
* solar wind which varies from a low of 1400 - 2300+ mph
* constantly changing gamma ray bombardment from the universe
* recurrent and unexpected geomagnetic storms on Earth due to coronal holes in the Sun
* sun bursts (solar flares) which are unpredictable and cause extreme bombardment of x-rays on earth at varying and unpredictable times each year
* varying UV (ultra-violet) rays from the sun
* Earth's irregular orbiting of the sun (we are not on a string and each orbit is different depending on positions of other planets, especially Jupiter and Saturn) Jupiter's size and gravitational pull effects Earth's orbit. Jupiter takes hundreds of years to orbit the sun and is currently the closest it's been since a thousand years before Christ
* the moon's gravity which controls the oceanic tidal movements is constantly changing and the moon is slowly drifting away from Earth
Other factors to consider:
* unbalanced gravitational drag due to geomagnetic field lines in plasmasphere
* fluctuating earth's magnetism (this is a biggie that confounds a lot of scientists)
* constantly shifting and changing ocean currents
* shifting trade winds
* volcano activity
* forest fires
* desertification (expanding deserts) from the removal of the natural vegetation cover and expanding agricultural activities in vulnerable ecosystems which negatively effects the hydrologic cycles (rain and moisture cycles)
* earthquakes (especially those under the waters of the ocean)
* carbon emissions ?
* chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), HCFCs, Freon, halons) causing an expanding hole in the ozone (i.e., man-made aerosol spray cans and Freon based refrigerants..., but also certain solvents, propellants, and foam-blowing agents such as Styrofoam)
In short, you would need a PhD in Heliospheric Physics to know and understand all the variables that effect the climate and there would still be variables not taken into consideration.
Going back to DOE (design of experiments), it would be futile to try to arrange a grid and confound variables to determine which factor combination is causing the most harm because of the sheer number of factors. And the true dilemma is, is that 99% of the variables are out of the reach of human control so they can't confound them anyway and subsequently doing the math.
Keep in mind that the Sun is 1.3 million times larger than earth. It does not have a thermostat and it is constantly changing and has gotten more moody in the last couple of decades. And we have no control over the many types of radiation and foreign elements bathed on earth from the universe and we cannot control the fluctuating magnetism and fluctuating gravity or virtually anything to do with controlling the sun.
For a scientist to conclude that "climate change is due to mankind's carbon footprint" is really, really shortsighted and ignores the reality that green earth thrives with CO2. That is not the same as "pollution" for which I am a warrior against pollution of any sort. CO2 is good - very good! Is too much CO2 bad? We don't know (unless you are a politician or a Hollywood icon speaking from the deck of a yacht or on a private jet) then of course you know....duhhh.
Plants, trees, and vegetation require a lot of carbon dioxide to flourish. A study reported by BBC in 2016 concluded that the increase in carbon dioxide emissions due to the industrial age has made Earth greener. The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. In essence, 92.5% of the carbon dioxide that contributes to the growth of vegetation comes from the ocean and most of man's contribution to CO2 is infinitesimal in the grand scheme of things.
A couple of points to end my long dragged out point(s):
1) The earth is greener than it has been in centuries as semi-arid areas are turning green and plant growth is at an all time high as well as crop production
2) Statistics show that for each degree of warmer temperature, most countries show a correlation of a healthier and longer life span of a couple years
With all that said, it rubs me the wrong way when a millionaire politician smugly lectures me from his huge mansion or his private jet and wants me to ride a bicycle to work or jam myself into a train like sardines in a can while he lives a life of luxury, eating at 5-stars on the taxpayer dime, being shuttled in limos, and playing grab ass with the pretty people and far, far away from the inconvenience imposed on us as they go laughing all the way to the bank happy to have found a con that works to keep him/her or their party in power and able to lord themselves over us with restrictions that effect none of them.
As far as clean energy, clean water, clean environment - I say let's go all out. Clean is good. Pollution is horrid.
I'm not going to proof this because I have other things to do. I apologize in advance for grammatical and spelling errors.
Quote from: Jolly Blue Giant on April 26, 2021, 04:39:19 PM
I will probably regret dragging myself into this discussion, but what the hey. Maybe it will help time pass faster until the Giants are on the clock Thursday night!
Jolly: It's a very complicated subject and there are so many variables that it makes it difficult to discuss without reference to experts, but I see your point; and by the way your post is impressive. Thanks. Bob
Quote from: Bob In PA on April 26, 2021, 04:27:35 PM
Rich: I totally agree that there may be better experts (more focused for a longer period of time on the issue) but that alone does not disqualify his opinion.
IMO, this guy has enough of the "right stuff" to have his views seriously considered, examined, dissected, and peer-reviewed.
Somewhere else, you correctly mentioned expert-witness qualifications & I forgot to reply. This guy passes the test; his testimony is admissible, IMO (the weight to be given to it would be for the jury to decide).
Bob
If you want to honestly present a balanced approach on a scientific subject you DON'T post from a propaganda journal, rather you DO post from a science journal or at least a journal dedicated to science
If you want to honestly present a balanced approach on a scientific subject you post a QUALIFIED subject matter expert you DON'T post some unqualified person's opinion merely because you agree with them
Quote from: Jolly Blue Giant on April 26, 2021, 04:39:19 PM
Herein lies the rub with climate change (which I do not deny, I just think it's highly politicized to give advantage to certain political groups who are only concerned with cementing power and control over the masses) is that politicians have determined that "carbon dioxide is the monster that must be slain", even though, CO2 is the lifeblood of trees, plants, and most life forms.
As I mentioned in this thread, I was raised by a father who was a mechanical engineer. I was taught about science before I was even in kindergarten. As such, I know that science is about fact, hypothesis, experimentation, and proof. It's about observation and open-mindedness (a willingness to adjust views based on new observation) and methodical methods to reach sound conclusions. Can someone explain to me the science behind what appears to me to be just an unsupported conspiracy theory? Then I really wonder what the point about CO2 is. To my scientific mind that is like saying you can't drown because your body is 60% water.
The book will be released for sale on May 4. I now see it on Amazon (that's the only place I looked so far) and it will also be available on in a Kindle (i.e., e-book) version on that date, too. Bob
https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters-ebook/dp/B08JQKQGD5
Description (from Amazon's site): When it comes to climate change, the media, politicians, and other prominent voices have declared that
Sounds like a really good book Bob. The part ("society
Quote from: Bob In PA on April 26, 2021, 09:56:51 PM
The book will be released for sale on May 4. I now see it on Amazon (that's the only place I looked so far) and it will also be available on in a Kindle (i.e., e-book) version on that date, too. Bob
https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters-ebook/dp/B08JQKQGD5
Description (from Amazon's site): When it comes to climate change, the media, politicians, and other prominent voices have declared that
Quote from: MightyGiants on April 27, 2021, 08:26:10 AM
Now their disdain for science is literally endangering the entire planet as they gleefully accelerate the destructive climate change we are witnessing
Rich: You are criticizing and denigrating a book you haven't read. Bob
Quote from: Bob In PA on April 27, 2021, 08:53:10 AM
Rich: You are criticizing and denigrating a book you haven't read. Bob
I am denigrating yours and the right's pushing of confirmation bias as a way of life. I am SUPPORTING using REAL EXPERTS. I am denigrating yours and the right's practice of measuring expertise based on how much a person agrees with your position or what you want to hear. It's funny, in the world of football you fully appreciate the concept of expertise and hearing contrary opinions. Once politics is involved all of that flies out the window. If politics started entering our discussions you would be pushing the views of Mad Dog (if they agreed with your opinions) and telling us to ignore the opinions of former GMs like Bill Polian or Mike Lombardi.
As I have said before intellectual consistency is very important. I maintain my views on expertise when I am looking at football or if I am looking at climate change. It doesn't change for me for political expediency
Quote from: MightyGiants on April 27, 2021, 09:06:28 AM
I am denigrating yours and the right's pushing of confirmation bias as a way of life. I am SUPPORTING using REAL EXPERTS. I am denigrating yours and the right's practice of measuring expertise based on how much a person agrees with your position or what you want to hear. It's funny, in the world of football you fully appreciate the concept of expertise and hearing contrary opinions. Once politics is involved all of that flies out the window. If politics started entering our discussions you would be pushing the views of Mad Dog (if they agreed with your opinions) and telling us to ignore the opinions of former GMs like Bill Polian or Mike Lombardi.
As I have said before intellectual consistency is very important. I maintain my views on expertise when I am looking at football or if I am looking at climate change. It doesn't change for me for political expediency
Rich: There is nothing intellectual (or scientific) about criticizing a book you haven't read. Bob
Quote from: Bob In PA on April 27, 2021, 09:15:47 AM
Rich: There is nothing intellectual (or scientific) about criticizing a book you haven't read. Bob
When a book is written by an unqualified person on a scientific topic and promoted by the right-wing propaganda machine as being written by "one of America's most distinguished scientist" the issue isn't the book it's the propaganda and the dangerous use of confirmation bias.
I read your and JBG's opinions on climate change. You two are literally as qualified to espouse your views on climate change as Steven Koonin's (well that isn't completely accurate as I would expect someone with a good science background to better understand a scientific topic than a layperson)
I said this about diversity of opinion on the main forum and it's just as relevant when talking about climate change, it's not the diversity of opinion that matters, it's the QUALITY of opinions that matter. To read this guy's book just because it promotes your political views on climate change is counterproductive to proper understanding of a complex issue.
The problem with "experts" is that every scientist thinks they are one. Never met a Phd holding scientist that thought of himself as anything other than an "expert". There is actually no truthful definition for the term "expert", as every individual has elements of expertise, but it flies in the face of other "experts" with differing views producing different results. As in theology, politics, and science - it is easy to find two experts who passionately disagree on issues and are 180 degrees of each other on what is a "fact" and what is not. As Arthur C. Clarke once said, "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert." In short: science is not and has never been settled - apart from the fundamental laws (gravity, thermodynamics, etc) and is a journey in process with an incredible number of ideas and viewpoints that are not necessarily (or even close) to the same. Knowledge is a building block still being built and it's built on the foundation of all previous thinkers over centuries. It's why we no longer bleed out people at the local barber shop to control high blood pressure and why we no longer drink raw milk. Hence, think for yourself and listen to all sides and make up your own mind who or what you want to believe
Albert Einstein stated, "We should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems, and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have the right to express themselves on questions affecting society."
One of the problems that concerns me with the whole issue of climate change, is that almost every laboratory that has degreed and respected (by peers) scientists are financed without producing something that can be subsequently sold for profit and thereby, cannot sustain themselves in a capitalistic society unless they choose a path like developing pharmaceuticals or high tech inventions. Whether on a college campus or in the many private laboratories, labs whose sole purpose is to "discover" and argue ideas have to be funded by some entity other than rely on self-sustaining profit. Nearly every penny that supports and sustains these scientists come from the government run by politicians. Scientists know that providing new evidence that does not support a political cause (thus, politicians seeking power) could be kissing their careers goodbye or even losing all funding to keep their lab afloat. Even college campus labs get government funding whether indirectly or directly that is tied heavily to scientific research. Every scientist knows who is buttering their bread and whose hands hold their future and it's good not to rock the boat of those who hold the purse strings. In fact, it is extremely advantageous to give credence to the politicians' desired results.
Anyone who thinks "climate change" is purely scientific without extreme political undertones does not understand the financial circle of life for scientists. Sad, but true. Little different now than half a millennia ago when the Pope arrested and imprisoned Galileo for inventing the telescope and proclaiming that earth is not the center of the universe. It pays to keep a finger in the political winds if you are a scientist
Quote from: Jolly Blue Giant on April 27, 2021, 10:03:51 AM
The problem with "experts" is that every scientist thinks they are one. Never met a Phd holding scientist that thought of himself as anything other than an "expert". There is actually no truthful definition for the term "expert", as every individual has elements of expertise, but it flies in the face of other "experts" with differing views producing different results.
It doesn't matter what you or a scientist thinks or even I think. The courts have long-established standards for what constitutes an expert
QuoteThe majority of states follow the Daubert standard for expert witnesses. In conjunction with Rule 702, only experts who are
A couple of articles that show phenomena that contributes to climate change...and of course, to help us feel even more helpless...LOL
https://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-is-tracking-the-mysterious-evolving-anomaly-in-earth-s-magnetic-field (https://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-is-tracking-the-mysterious-evolving-anomaly-in-earth-s-magnetic-field)
https://scitechdaily.com/space-hurricane-observed-over-the-earth-for-the-first-time/ (https://scitechdaily.com/space-hurricane-observed-over-the-earth-for-the-first-time/)
The sun is a fascinating entity
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2020/what-will-solar-cycle-25-look-like-sun-prediction-model (https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2020/what-will-solar-cycle-25-look-like-sun-prediction-model)
Quote from: MightyGiants on April 27, 2021, 09:33:21 AM
When a book is written by an unqualified person on a scientific topic and promoted by the right-wing propaganda machine as being written by "one of America's most distinguished scientist" the issue isn't the book it's the propaganda and the dangerous use of confirmation bias.
Rich: To date, the only person in the world who has "pronounced" the author unqualified is you. IMO, you are not qualified to do so. Find me an exprert who says the author is unqualified... then get back to me.
Quote from: MightyGiants on April 27, 2021, 09:33:21 AM
I read your and JBG's opinions on climate change. You two are literally as qualified to espouse your views on climate change as Steven Koonin's (well that isn't completely accurate as I would expect someone with a good science background to better understand a scientific topic than a layperson)
Rich: I disagree. The difference between us and the expert is that the expert did a multi-year study of all of the scientific literature. We have not done so.
Quote from: MightyGiants on April 27, 2021, 09:33:21 AM
I said this about diversity of opinion on the main forum and it's just as relevant when talking about climate change, it's not the diversity of opinion that matters, it's the QUALITY of opinions that matter. To read this guy's book just because it promotes your political views on climate change is counterproductive to proper understanding of a complex issue.
Rich: I agree that quality matters. IMO, the author of the book is eminently qualified to render an opinion. So I started this thread to note the conclusion he reached (for commentary by interested members, if any).
Bob
Quote from: Bob In PA on April 27, 2021, 02:41:25 PM
Rich: To date, the only person in the world who has "pronounced" the author unqualified is you. IMO, you are not qualified to do so. Find me an exprert who says the author is unqualified... then get back to me.
Rich: I disagree. The difference between us and the expert is that the expert did a multi-year study of all of the scientific literature. We have not done so.
Rich: I agree that quality matters. IMO, the author of the book is eminently qualified to render an opinion. So I started this thread to note the conclusion he reached (for commentary by interested members, if any).
Bob
I have to say, the right employs literally every logical fallacy in the book to further it's agenda. With this point you displayed text book shifting the burden of proof fallacy
QuoteSHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF
The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.
QuoteThe difference between us and the expert is that the expert did a multi-year study of all of the scientific literature.
The guy read some science journals and now he is writing a book. He is not an "expert" he is just like you or I (maybe more me since I have a science background) who is expressing his non-expert opinions.
Quotethe author of the book is eminently qualified to render an opinion.
Yet, thousands of actual experts who would meet the legal definition of an expert witness (which FACTUALLY the guy your claim to be an expert is not) you dismiss because they don't support your climate-denying views.
I guess we have circled back to the who confirmation bias thing
Edit to add- On the first point you played a two for on the logical fallacies as you also employed the where you argued that lots of people claim your guy is an expert and verses me so the many must be correct
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people" is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so".
Quote from: MightyGiants on April 27, 2021, 03:32:39 PM
I have to say, the right employs literally every logical fallacy in the book to further it's agenda.
That's pretty condescending to say that. How is having an opinion "an agenda". What exactly do you think is the "right wing agenda"???
Before I say what I think it is, be it known that I'm a registered Independent because I despise both parties - switched to "Ind" in 1972 - however, I'm fiscally conservative, socially open minded, and probably would be classified by the left and those needing to stereotype everyone into a group as a "Radical Right Wing Hate Mongering Racist Bastard" - Never mind that my heart and my home overflows with love - not just for each other, but our neighbors and acquaintances. I'm a born again Christian who attempts to emulate Christ's life, but fail often, but not for lack of trying. My siblings have interracial children and grandchildren and we don't see color - but if I listen to CNN, that's all I see. Pisses me off.
Here's my right wing agenda:
- individual freedom without an overbearing government bureaucracy spying on me and always telling how to live (according to their standards)
- the right to have an opinion and even speak that opinion openly - even if it doesn't correspond with the WOKE crowd - without being attacked
- I want the government to be efficient, cut costs, become lean, and be fiscally responsible so that my grandchildren and great grandchildren stand a chance to have a good life without being taxed into oblivion
- I love academics and am distressed at the failings of our schools that have switched from teaching kids how to think for themselves, and instead indoctrinate them with left wing socialist propaganda they call "progressive" and now we have a generation of kids who are dead last in math and science compared to all civil societies, but have been taught that all white people are inherently racists and all blacks and minorities are victims of incredible hatred. Saddens me that politicians own the teachers who then fan the flames of racism just to get more democrat politicians into office
- I am a student of history and therefore reject all forms of communism and socialism (communism lite) after seeing the utter failure of every attempt, each subsequent try thinking they are smarter than the last one the failed at it
- I love liberty and I love my country. I would die for it (not that I want to, but I would)
- I want my children, grandchildren to be free from an oppressive all-controlling government like that in China, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, etc.
- In short: I just want to be free - free from harassment from the left, free to keep enough of my earnings to survive comfortably, a free from unelected faceless bureaucrats who tell me how to think and how to live. Screw them! ~X(
Personally, I don't try to persuade my liberal friends to join me or my way of thinking or to vote the way I choose to vote in the privacy of a booth. Every person deserves to vote how they want and think how they want - this is America for heaven's sake (or used to be). On the other hand, I figure if they are intelligent, they'll eventually come around on their own - they usually do :laugh:
(https://i.postimg.cc/fyxnmhP8/Clipboard06.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/rpbvHmXh/Clipboard03.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/sg5QxBKW/Clipboard04.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
I am confused am I supposed to do as you say, or do as you do? :-?? ;)
Also, your effort to zing me doesn't bother me. Ideologies are incompatible with my efforts to adhere to logic and avoid logical fallacies so I have little use for them.
Quote from: Jolly Blue Giant on April 27, 2021, 04:19:12 PM
That's pretty condescending to say that. How is having an opinion "an agenda". What exactly do you think is the "right wing agenda"???
(https://i.postimg.cc/fyxnmhP8/Clipboard06.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/rpbvHmXh/Clipboard03.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/sg5QxBKW/Clipboard04.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Quote from: MightyGiants on April 27, 2021, 06:01:22 PM
I am confused am I supposed to do as you say, or do as you do? :-?? ;)
Also, your effort to zing me doesn't bother me. Ideologies are incompatible with my efforts to adhere to logic and avoid logical fallacies so I have little use for them.
Sorry if I offended you. Wasn't really trying to zing anyone.
My beef is that you imply (or at least I inferred) that you believe those on the right have some sort of a "disingenuous hidden master plan" or something. IMHO, an agenda is meant to "change" things in a different direction - and if necessary - use tricks and deception to get something that couldn't be gotten otherwise so deceitful tactics become the norm. For the most part, I believe that the right is straight forward and honest in what they want. They aren't trying to use chicanery in an attempt to do something hidden and only want a responsible government that allows freedom for everyone and to follow the Constitution to the letter. I would think that would be a given to most people, but there are those on the left who want to radically change America away from the Constitution and away from the things that made America prosperous and a great place to live. There is no need for the right to use tactics to make their point clear. It is crystal clear and the right says as much. On the other hand, in order for the left to move the country in the direction of socialism the need for duplicity is incredibly important. They can't preach the end of the Constitution or building an all seeing, all controlling, freedom stifling, overpowering, monster government in D.C., because the average American would never buy it so misrepresentation is a huge requirement to fulfill their desires and are forced to use all means of disinformation and dishonesty, especially through the main stream media and academia.
I like Bernie Sanders. Not for his political viewpoints, but because of his direct honesty! He doesn't beat around the bush and says straight out that he wants America to radically change into a socialistic society. He doesn't beat around the bush like most on the left who pretend they want personal freedom and the opportunity for prosperity and happiness while voting for individuals who want to get rid of personal freedom, personal prosperity, and happiness. Bernie comes right out and says it: "we need a huge monstrous government to run every part of your life - then we'll take all your money and filter it through D.C. and give back some of it, i.e., what we think you should have" in order for life to be fair. In short, the left wants to use the sledge hammer of an unchecked political machine to make sure that there is "equal outcome" for everyone instead of "equal opportunity" for everyone. And as history has proven over and over and over again - it never works. Everyone ends up unhappy and poor...unless of course, you are politically connected and then you are golden. All politicians become the "royalty" and everyone not connected becomes the peasant. Unfortunately, there are people who believe an all controlling government attempting to make the life of everyone equal will "work this time" because we are smarter than all those countries who have tried it before. They believe that capitalism is the bane of society and the only "good" people left are the the omniscient politicians in the democrat party headed by Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, John Kerry, etc. Everyone else is ignorant and stupid.
People in this generation do not understand how far the left has come from just a generation or two ago. JFK would never get elected as a democrat as he would be a far right republican - even further right that the Bush's. Even FDR would no longer fit into the agenda of today's left and he'd be torched as a right leaning moderate. And for those who don't study politics, Ronald Reagan started life toying with socialism and a follower of FDR. He was a democrat until he was in his 50's and called himself an FDR democrat. He made the famous speech in his later years that he did not leave the democrat party, it left him. The democrat party today can pretty much be summed up as the party of Bernie Sanders and AOC (along with her squad) as these are the key people setting the agenda from which Biden gets his marching orders and who the party walks lock step to their drumbeat.
I'll stop rambling because once I get going, I am "brevity challenged" and tend to write books once I get going. My point is: the right has no hidden agenda and are straight forward in what they want and that is personal freedom and to stop the left from destroying this country by following in the footsteps of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Trotsky, Tito, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Ch
JBG,
I am not offended because if I were to put an ideological label on myself, the label would be an independent critical thinker who is driven by the value of equality, fairness, honesty, and compassion. So as I said the shots you took at liberals with your right-wing anti-liberal propaganda missed their mark.
I did find it rather interesting that you took offense at what you perceived as my slights toward's the American right-wing movement (although I was shorthanding the right-wing propaganda machine). It's interesting that you find criticism of the right highly offensive while not only feeling comfortable posting anti-liberal AMerican propaganda but being opening contemptuous (repeatedly) towards the right's favorite liberal American representatives
QuoteOne of the things that sticks in my craw, is that we are talked down to by media icons, politicians, actors, singers, Hollywood starlets (harlots) holding their signs "THE END IS NEAR" and subjected to climate fear-mongering tactics
I say interesting but hardly surprising as even the most cursory review of right-wing propaganda reveals one of their foundational principles is the demonization of Americans they don't agree with or feel are part of their "group". Sometimes they will directly demonize a group of Americas like liberals or Democrats, or Muslims. Other times they create proxy representatives of those groups like "Hollywood", but it's all to serve the same purpose. It's to indoctrinate Americans into anger, outrage, fear, or outright hate for the fellow citizens often for the only offense of not agreeing with them (not that the RWPM will directly say that). Angry or scared people are so much easier to manipulate than people thinking rationally. Never in my over half-century on this planet can look back at a decision and think, "man if only I was more emotional when I made that decision"
It's sort of interesting JBG, the way you describe the right, they seem like the world's only perfect entity. Does the right have any faults or agendas that are less than ideal for all Americans?
as a member of the independent critical thinking ideology, I see you singing the praise of the right while seeing a lot of serious inconsistencies.
Quoteleft who want to radically change America away from the Constitution and away from the things that made America prosperous and a great place to live.
I always find this one interesting. It's was summed up in the right's superstar icon Donald Trump's Make America Great slogan. Most of the time when people talk about "made America prosperous and a great place to live" there is an unspoken (and often unrealized) subtext of "as a white American" or as a "straight white male". I am sure most African Americans don't want the wheels of progress rolled back to the good old days when they couldn't live in white neighborhoods, were excluded from many jobs, and suffered many other injustices. The same could be said of Americans who are part of LBGT community, they certainly don't have "good old days" to look on with fondess. It's sort of ironic that the right (even in your own post) paints our federal government as this sinister entity that is hell-bent on robbing people of their rights and freedoms, yet most on the right loved the federal government banning gay marriage or allow a woman control of her own body. Sort of serious inconsistency issue there.
While I feel the right-wing propaganda machine has had a truly toxic effect on our nation, sometimes I can't help but admire their effectiveness. I mean factually every time the GOP/Conservatives come to power the gap between the wealthy and the rest of us grows larger. Yet oddly enough the RWPM managed to convince you that the left is out to steal all your money. I mean an un-biased outside observe would look at the Dems/left's support of unions, better minimum wage, more worker rights, etc and then look at the right's focus on cutting taxes for the wealthy and giving more power to employers and conclude that anyone outside the wealthiest one or two percent would be crazy to support the right/GOP. Yet they have you so convinced the left will steal your money (often using the communism bogey man that even made it into your anti-liberal propaganda) that you and many others will actively work against your own interests.
I could go on, but this post is long enough
Edit to add: JBG I am really interesting where you see shortcomings among the American conservative movement/positons or at least areas you don't agree
Exactly what propaganda do you believe the right is making with their machine? I've never met a right winger who didn't know exactly what they believed and wanted and spelled it out for all to see. No propaganda -no bait-n-switch - no false promises if you vote for such and such - no beating around the bush. The say they believe in the Constitution and following the Constitution to the letter - and they do. They say they love personal freedom to do whatever they want to do as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's freedoms and rights, and yhat's what they do. They say they believe in the opportunity to pursue happiness as each person describes happiness, and that's what they do. The right just wants (and say that's what they want) for the mfng government to stay out of our mfgn business and let us live or lives as we see fit! We desire a small well run government. Draining the swamp of all the leeches suckling on Mother America's teat and drinking the milky wealth of taxpayer funded obscure behind the scenes government made jobs!
I couldn't help but notice you brought in racism again. All eight of my great, great grandfathers fought in the Civil War because they were so adamantly against slavery - two of them were wounded and spent the rest of their lives as cripples. Seven of my great, great, great uncles gave up their lives in the civil war. You can read their letters if you want by going to https://quod.lib.umich.edu/c/clementsead/umich-wcl-M-3330.1oti?view=text (https://quod.lib.umich.edu/c/clementsead/umich-wcl-M-3330.1oti?view=text) and requesting their letters. All four of the men were my uncles and they gave up their lives in that war for a purpose they believed in. Before they marched to war, they held secret meetings in the now defunct Forrest Lake Baptist Church in Susquehanna County, PA where they formed protests against slavery and marched through downtown Montrose, PA in parades making their objections to slavery known to everyone - and this was long before the Civil War broke out and when it did break out, they were first in line to sign up.
Regardless, I carry the genes of people who gave up their lives to fight for the freedom of blacks. My family has intermarried with blacks and my family adopted two black children. My entire life I have never been a racist or even harbored racist thoughts. I am not a "rich white man" because I am white. I don't know what it's like to be rich. I grew up on a farm with chores since I was 5 years old - and some of them were brutal. I put myself through college working three jobs and was so busy working that I didn't even bother to go to my graduation ceremonies and simply waited until the papers came in the mail from Binghamton University and Syracuse University. Although I have a lot of education and have expertise in several fields (I am considered a GD&T guru and have taught the subject for years to hundreds of engineers and manufacturing personnel as well as teaching statistics to monitor trends, etc while simultaneously working as an engineer), I have not gotten rich. I've gotten somewhat comfortable and have been able to help my now grown kids through college and supporting their dreams, but I am anything but rich. But, if I listen to CNN or MSNBC I discover that the work I did on the farm or what I had to do to get my education is only because I'm white...and therefore, I am automatically a racist and nothing I did in life earned what I now possess. It's insulting. But that's the mantra of every left winger I know. Stir the pot of racism over and over and over and hope to create a race war so that more useless democrats win the lottery by getting elected to office ~X(
Quote from: Jolly Blue Giant on April 28, 2021, 01:17:46 PM
Exactly what propaganda do you believe the right is making with their machine? I've never met a right winger who didn't know exactly what they believed and wanted and spelled it out for all to see. No propaganda -no bait-n-switch - no false promises if you vote for such and such - no beating around the bush. The say they believe in the Constitution and following the Constitution to the letter - and they do. They say they love personal freedom to do whatever they want to do as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's freedoms and rights, and yhat's what they do. They say they believe in the opportunity to pursue happiness as each person describes happiness, and that's what they do. The right just wants (and say that's what they want) for the mfng government to stay out of our mfgn business and let us live or lives as we see fit! We desire a small well run government. Draining the swamp of all the leeches suckling on Mother America's teat and drinking the milky wealth of taxpayer funded obscure behind the scenes government made jobs!
I couldn't help but notice you brought in racism again. All eight of my great, great grandfathers fought in the Civil War because they were so adamantly against slavery - two of them were wounded and spent the rest of their lives as cripples. Seven of my great, great, great uncles gave up their lives in the civil war. You can read their letters if you want by going to https://quod.lib.umich.edu/c/clementsead/umich-wcl-M-3330.1oti?view=text (https://quod.lib.umich.edu/c/clementsead/umich-wcl-M-3330.1oti?view=text) and requesting their letters. All four of the men were my uncles and they gave up their lives in that war for a purpose they believed in. Before they marched to war, they held secret meetings in the now defunct Forrest Lake Baptist Church in Susquehanna County, PA where they formed protests against slavery and marched through downtown Montrose, PA in parades making their objections to slavery known to everyone - and this was long before the Civil War broke out and when it did break out, they were first in line to sign up.
Regardless, I carry the genes of people who gave up their lives to fight for the freedom of blacks. My family has intermarried with blacks and my family adopted two black children. My entire life I have never been a racist or even harbored racist thoughts. I am not a "rich white man" because I am white. I don't know what it's like to be rich. I grew up on a farm with chores since I was 5 years old - and some of them were brutal. I put myself through college working three jobs and was so busy working that I didn't even bother to go to my graduation ceremonies and simply waited until the papers came in the mail from Binghamton University and Syracuse University. Although I have a lot of education and have expertise in several fields (I am considered a GD&T guru and have taught the subject for years to hundreds of engineers and manufacturing personnel as well as teaching statistics to monitor trends, etc while simultaneously working as an engineer), I have not gotten rich. I've gotten somewhat comfortable and have been able to help my now grown kids through college and supporting their dreams, but I am anything but rich. But, if I listen to CNN or MSNBC I discover that the work I did on the farm or what I had to do to get my education is only because I'm white...and therefore, I am automatically a racist and nothing I did in life earned what I now possess. It's insulting. But that's the mantra of every left winger I know. Stir the pot of racism over and over and over and hope to create a race war so that more useless democrats win the lottery by getting elected to office ~X(
A few points of interest in your comments. You keep saying how you are insulted and offended, yet why do you not provide the same courtesy to the left? I mean you never take a chance to demonize and insult liberal Americans. You talk about them like they are evil monsters that are out to hurt you personally. I mean what happened to the golden rule of treating others as they wish to be treated? How can you immediately go to full outrage mode at the slightest criticism of the right and yet feel so comfortable with your own far worse denigration of Americans you don't agree with?
You keep talking about the right like they are perfect. I that really what you think? Is there anything the right does that is less than ideal? Do you part ways with them on any issues?
I also would like to talk about your reaction to my point that female Americans, minorities, and Americans who are part of the LGBT community don't long for the old days like white (especially straight male) Americans do. Your reaction was no a logic-based thought about the point being made. Instead, you were conditioned to go full-on defensive rage mode at the slightest mention of disparities. HOW DARE YOU CALL ME RACIST shut down any sort of productive or reasonable dialog (as the right-wing propaganda network wants it). The FACT of the matter is I didn't call you racist. Yet that didn't stop me from enduring your rage.
Let me focus the discussion on one of the other examples where you will hopefully react less violently
The following list is of NINE things a woman couldn
QuoteJBG,
It really appears by your posts that you think the right is the closest thing to perfect you will see on this planet and you believe liberal Americans are the closest thing to pure evil you will see on this planet. It's also clear that you despise our government despite the fact that it is of the people, for the people, and by the people.
I don't think that republicans are always right, and in fact despise plenty of them. I'm a libertarian at heart, but hate labels so I end up just being independent. Voted for Gary Johnson twice. The thing that killed him was his stance that marijuana should be legalized and took a hard stance against the military budget. Anyway, he wasn't perfect, but he thought along my way of thinking...except cutting the military budget as I believe in having the strongest force in the world as a deterrence to war. Lotta crazies in this world and if they think you're weak, they'll test you.
I believe what RR said about Democrats is spot on, "it's not that Democrats aren't smart, it's just that they know so much that isn't true"...LOL
I don't hate Dems - hell, half my family are Dems including my son who was a combat medic in Iran. We get along fine and actually agree on a lot of things, but tend to shy away from discussions where we disagree. He's young and very smart (recent grad from U.of Wisconsin), so I know he'll come around.
QuoteWhen I see views like yours I can't help but think of the words of Abraham Lincoln
I'm glad that you think of Abraham Lincoln when reading my views. I consider that a compliment. A lot of people don't realize that he was far more lacking in gravitas or political decorum than Trump. Like telling a woman who yelled at him for reducing government employees to balance the budget and saying, "sorry, but there's not enough tits on the hog to feed all the piglets". Abe could be crude, both in word and in statesmanship and his great Gettysburg Address speech was not indicative of the way he talked all the time.
Anyway, I don't hate liberals. I don't understand them...well, except Bernie and AOC who aren't afraid to say what their party is really about. I know exactly what they want because they don't beat around the bush to deceive the less astute masses like the MSM
I have a little thought exercise for you JBG. I want you to list 3 positions you disagree with conservatives and 3 positions you agree with liberals. As I am a man that would never ask anyone else to do what I myself wouldn't do
1) on a local issue I am against the liberals/democrats in my state that are banning all paper and plastic bags. While I can accept the plastic bag argument I can't accept the banning of paper bags
2) I disagree with liberals who oppose all military activity against terrorists like drone strikes
3) I am in partial disagreement with liberals and Democrats allowing the complete inclusion of transgender females in sports. I believe that equality must also include biological equality. I think there should be standards in terms of how long an athlete has not had the what I consider a performance-enhancing drug- testosterone
1) I generally favor the tougher on crime approach of conservatives/Republicans
2) I generally favor the GOP/Right's view on a strong defense
3) Like Republicans I have a hard time seeing a reason to object to a Christmas tree on public property (with the provision that if another religion requests a similar display they be accommodated)
Now your turn JBG
I'll get back to you. It will take me all night and probably tomorrow to come up with 3 things I agree on with liberals, LOL. Be patient, I will address. There is a little distraction going on right now called the NFL draft and it kind of owns my brain until Saturday night.
Quote from: Jolly Blue Giant on April 28, 2021, 05:02:00 PM
I'll get back to you. It will take me all night and probably tomorrow to come up with 3 things I agree on with liberals, LOL. Be patient, I will address. There is a little distraction going on right now called the NFL draft and it kind of owns my brain until Saturday night.
I am going to share the story of what inspired this exercise. I was reading an article once on how to communicate with zealots and extremists. They had a handful of tips on how to try and bridge the divide and find common ground. However, the article made clear there are no sure-fire tricks and sometimes you never will reach the other person. Then came the Ah-ha! moment for me, they said if you fail you also need to entertain the very real possibility that it is you that is the zealot/extremist. Needless to say that idea appealed to me on many levels in terms of critical thinking and trying to be careful in assumptions.
That's when I devised this little exercise. My feeling is depending on how broad the issue/topic one should be able to come up with a reasonable number of points you disagree with your "side" on and points you agree with the "other side". With a topic as broad as an ideology/political party it seemed like being able to find 3 for each would be a good measure of one's extremism and potential zeolatry. For me, it's a bit of a self-check.
Quote from: NapoleonBlownapart on May 06, 2021, 07:44:15 PM
2071 what will they be dealing with in regards to pollution? mostly electric cars then surely so where will their big pollution issues come from?
Nap: What fuel will be used to make the electricity to charge all of those electric cars? I don't see solar and wind as being sufficient... building nuclear plants (or something else) will be needed. Bob
Quote from: Bob In PA on May 06, 2021, 11:40:52 PM
Nap: What fuel will be used to make the electricity to charge all of those electric cars? I don't see solar and wind as being sufficient... building nuclear plants (or something else) will be needed. Bob
Bob - that's why I say its fascinating. people = pollution and more people (since the population is not shrinking at this point) = more pollution. its possible the way the future deals with power sources is unknown, yet to be discovered. or current sources will be refined and used more efficiently.
who would have thought leaded gas in 1971 would have disappeared by roughly 1990? yes unleaded was around at that time but if I recall correctly, engines then were built for leaded gas and performed the absolute best when leaded was used. My Dad's 1970 Olds comes to mind. whenever he put unleaded in the thing it coughed and sputtered.
Quote from: NapoleonBlownapart on May 07, 2021, 01:10:52 PM
Bob - that's why I say its fascinating. people = pollution and more people (since the population is not shrinking at this point) = more pollution. its possible the way the future deals with power sources is unknown, yet to be discovered. or current sources will be refined and used more efficiently.
who would have thought leaded gas in 1971 would have disappeared by roughly 1990? yes unleaded was around at that time but if I recall correctly, engines then were built for leaded gas and performed the absolute best when leaded was used. My Dad's 1970 Olds comes to mind. whenever he put unleaded in the thing it coughed and sputtered.
Our IQs Are Six Points Higher Since We Stopped Putting Lead In Gas
https://jalopnik.com/our-iqs-are-six-points-higher-since-we-stopped-putting-5968523
Quote from: MightyGiants on May 07, 2021, 01:26:22 PM
Our IQs Are Six Points Higher Since We Stopped Putting Lead In Gas
https://jalopnik.com/our-iqs-are-six-points-higher-since-we-stopped-putting-5968523
Rich: First, are you sure it wasn't because we took the lead out of PAINT?
Toddlers interacting with paint seems the more likely explanation for that (but I don't know for sure).
Second, the issue of climate change has more to do with carbon dioxide than lead, so your remark is at least a partly a non sequitur.
Bob
Quote from: Bob In PA on May 07, 2021, 01:42:11 PM
Rich: First, are you sure it wasn't because we took the lead out of PAINT?
Toddlers interacting with paint seems the more likely explanation for that (but I don't know for sure).
Second, the issue of climate change has more to do with carbon dioxide than lead, so your remark is at least a partly a non sequitur.
Bob
Bob,
Lead paint is still an issue. There are still many older homes and apartments with lead paint. I have had meeting about childhood lead. An oldtime health officer who is really into the issue of lead, would often opine about how the lead in gas made him and his generation less intelligent.
Yes, lead doesn't have anything to do with Climate change, but since it was mentioned, I thought I would share what I knew about the whole led thing.
Quote from: MightyGiants on May 07, 2021, 01:47:39 PM
Bob,
Led paint is still an issue. There are still many older homes and apartments with lead paint. I have had meeting about childhood lead. An oldtime health officer who is really into the issue of lead, would often opine about how the lead in gas made him and his generation less intelligent.
Yes, lead doesn't have anything to do with Climate change, but since it was mentioned, I thought I would share what I knew about the whole led thing.
Rich: Here is a report from the Rhodium Group (whoever they are) correctly stating that China emits more greenhouse gases than the rest of the developed world combined (and has done so since 2019).
I would think a major step in the process of "cleaning up" the world would be to go after them
That does not excuse us from doing what we can (and can afford, but IMO the focus should be on China (India is not exactly helping much either, and their huge population breathes a lot more crap than ours does).
Bob
https://rhg.com/research/chinas-emissions-surpass-developed-countries/
Quote from: Bob In PA on May 07, 2021, 01:58:02 PM
Rich: Here is a report from the Rhodium Group (whoever they are) correctly stating that China emits more greenhouse gases than the rest of the developed world combined (and has done so since 2019).
I would think a major step in the process of "cleaning up" the world would be to go after them
That does not excuse us from doing what we can (and can afford, but IMO the focus should be on China (India is not exactly helping much either, and their huge population breathes a lot more crap than ours does).
Bob
https://rhg.com/research/chinas-emissions-surpass-developed-countries/
Your comments remind me of when I was young, smart, but obviously less wise. When I worked at the hospital, I was always on the safety committee. We had this young hotshot VP who was bragging about how our employee incidents have just dropped 10%. I started laughing. When he asked what was so funny, I pointed out that the 10% reduction exactly matched the 10% layoff that was during the same time period. See the problem was the committee worked with the flawed view of total employee incidents rather than incident per employee or better yet incident per FTE (or equivalent). Needless to say, he didn't find my point nearly as amusing as I did. :D
When you adjust on a per capita basis China drops from number 1 to number 13
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions
I suspect you will find this mistake as amusing as the former VP did. By the way, I never did like that guy. He just oozed insincerity. He eventually betrayed the hospital (after being promoted to acting President) I was working for, went on to be the president of a bigger hospital, and then drugs, alcohol and his hard-partying life style caught up with him and he got fired and then he died some years back (he was my age)
Quote from: MightyGiants on May 07, 2021, 02:09:18 PM
When you adjust on a per capita basis China drops from number 1 to number 13
Rich: Quantity matters more to the atmosphere than statistical analysis of where it comes from. If there's anything to be truly alarmed about on this topic, consider this:
Continued development of high population countries (China & India) represents a proportionately greater danger to the planet and will result in proportionately greater increases in the total amount of pollution
Per capita is important. The implication (likely correct) is... we can do more about ours than they can (doesn't sound right, but I think it's true). And IMO we should always do as much as we are able (and can afford).
Bob
Quote from: MightyGiants on May 07, 2021, 01:26:22 PM
Our IQs Are Six Points Higher Since We Stopped Putting Lead In Gas
https://jalopnik.com/our-iqs-are-six-points-higher-since-we-stopped-putting-5968523
no wonder i am so stupid
Quote from: Bob In PA on May 07, 2021, 01:42:11 PM
Rich: First, are you sure it wasn't because we took the lead out of PAINT?
Toddlers interacting with paint seems the more likely explanation for that (but I don't know for sure).
Second, the issue of climate change has more to do with carbon dioxide than lead, so your remark is at least a partly a non sequitur.
Bob
no wonder I am stupider than stupid
Quote from: MightyGiants on May 07, 2021, 01:47:39 PM
Bob,
Lead paint is still an issue. There are still many older homes and apartments with lead paint. I have had meeting about childhood lead. An oldtime health officer who is really into the issue of lead, would often opine about how the lead in gas made him and his generation less intelligent.
Yes, lead doesn't have anything to do with Climate change, but since it was mentioned, I thought I would share what I knew about the whole led thing.
I tried to use this as an example of change over 50 years ....I did not expect the spanish inquizition ...j/k enjoy!
It's sort of funny, 20 or 30 years ago I remember either a TV or movie where one of the main plotlines was there was a secret cabal working to ensure that countries like China didn't become first world countries because the assertion was a planet didn't have the resources or capacity to handle it. I don't remember anything else but that plot point, but oddly enough all these years later I wonder if perhaps the assertion wasn't complete fiction
Quote from: MightyGiants on May 07, 2021, 03:03:05 PM
It's sort of funny, 20 or 30 years ago I remember either a TV or movie where one of the main plotlines was there was a secret cabal working to ensure that countries like China didn't become first world countries because the assertion was a planet didn't have the resources or capacity to handle it. I don't remember anything else but that plot point, but oddly enough all these years later I wonder if perhaps the assertion wasn't complete fiction
Rich: If they ever wired every Chinese and Indian household for electricity the view from outer space would be a whole lot different than what we see today. LOL Same for the African continent. Bob