The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[freebeard]

All y'all are mezmerised by Hollywood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyDbq5HRs0o

This is basically 1950s industrial 'porn', I could only take about half of it but now I know about machining Hastelloy-N alloys.
________

Organs will be 3D printed from cell cultures.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Where is sea level rise effecting millions of people?

Again, all this ice is melting and the sea level rise isn't even measurable. So either the ice isn't melting or some other unknown mechanism is in play.

People who already live below sea level don't count, on account of its a really bad idea overall and throughout human history anything man made holding back sea water is at the seas mercy and is going to fail. It's only a matter of time.
To believe otherwise is delusional.

From Jeff Goodell,May,2017:
*Half the world's population lives within 50-miles of coastline.
*IPCC predicted from,less than 1-foot,to 3.2-feet sea-level rise by 2100.
*The Twaites Glacier is a 'threshold system.'
*The Antarctic Peninsula is undergoing 'marine ice sheet instability'.
*If the ice sheets go,the glaciers will go,and estimates run from 10-feet,to 16-feet of 'catastrophic' sea-level rise.
*Major population centers impacted will be:
-Miami,Fort Lauderdale,Tampa,Mar-a-lago,Boston,San Francisco,below the 101 Freeway,Sacramento,Galveston,Norfolk,New Orleans,Washington.D.C.,Shanghai,Bangkok,Jakarta,L agos,London,Nile Delta,Egypt,Bangladesh,Marshall Islands,Maldives.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*As of 2004,the average temp. increase at the W.Antarctic Peninsula since 1950 was:
Winter,8.8-degrees F
Annual,4.5-degrees F
*As of 2015,calving events are doubling over 7-years.
*As of June,2018,Antarctica is melting twice as fast as predicted.
*Arctic is melting twice as fast.............................................. ..
*Greenland is melting twice as fast.........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Because of wind and ocean currents,sea-level rise is not distributed uniformly,so some areas see greater water column height than others.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Sea-level rise is measurable.
*It's under constant satellite monitoring.
Last night PBS reported from Miami.They are already experiencing flooding from regular rain events.

[aerohead]

After 11-pages of thoughts about the Dave Rubin/Alex Epstein YouTube I'm only willing to waste a few sentences on Epstein.
*It was Epstein's free-market capitalism that brought down the US/Global economy in 1929.
*And while Ayn Rand was sitting on her ass writing The Fountainhead,F.D.R.'s Big Government's Lend-Lease,Super-Lend-Lease,and Arsenal of Democracy was reversing the tide of the free-market's Great Depression.
*And perhaps,the only reason Atlas Shrugged wasn't published entirely in German,with the imprimatur of the Third Reich and Swastika embossed on the title page,was because of Big Government,onerous regulations,and policies, imposed between 1939 and 1945.
*Epstein's self-induced Objectivist head wound has allowed his mindless oversight of the notion, that John Galt's, Universal Motor's, atmospheric static electricity accumulators, too-cheap-to-meter,renewable energy technology, emerged at the moment when David Keeling's CO2 research was signaling,'Houston we have a problem.'
*Galt's Gulch ran on renewable energy.
*Epstein's mother should be screened for Zika virus.
*Mann and Musk were smart to block him.

[redpoint5]

So, you object to Epstein because he makes you feel bad. You've name-called, but provided not a single objection to a claim he has made.

FDR was among the worst presidencies for the US, and most economists would agree.

Why is being objective a bad thing? The only alternative is subjectivity, which is pointless.

I haven't read anything by Ayn, but someday when I have way more time than I know what to do with, I'll check it out. Did Alex talk a lot about her?

I expect reasonable responses to reasonable discussion, not reactionary diatribe. There's plenty to take exception to with Alex's outlook on oil. For starters, he doesn't give proper acknowledgement of the negative externalities of burning it, nor does he address the fact that it's a dwindling resource. The reason he's controversial is because it's politically incorrect to mention anything good about burning fossil fuels.

Every single action carries with it opportunity cost and unintended consequences. To view anything as entirely good, or entirely bad is shortsighted.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

So, you object to Epstein because he makes you feel bad. You've name-called, but provided not a single objection to a claim he has made.

FDR was among the worst presidencies for the US, and most economists would agree.

Why is being objective a bad thing? The only alternative is subjectivity, which is pointless.

I haven't read anything by Ayn, but someday when I have way more time than I know what to do with, I'll check it out. Did Alex talk a lot about her?

I expect reasonable responses to reasonable discussion, not reactionary diatribe.

Every single action carries with it opportunity cost and unintended consequences. To view anything as entirely good, or entirely bad is shortsighted.

I've given you the only response a reasonable person can.
Zen Buddhism can help with expectation.That's a dead end.
Nothing I can say will mean anything until you've read Rand's work.
And Epstein is 100% into Rand's Objectivism.
Objectivism is not objective.It's not rational.It's a cultish,confirmationally-biased lens through which everything is filtered.
That's why Mann and Musk won't waste any of their time on Alex.It would be like talking to a wall.Futile.
And don't sell FDR short.He may be the reason you're speaking English instead of German.
Same for those economists.
If you want,do the reading and we can talk then.

[redpoint5]

Yeah, but what does Musk and Mann have to do with Epstein, or anything he has said? I follow 0 people on Twitter, so who's following who, or even how it all works is lost on me (and anyone else similarly disinterested in artificially short, 1-way echo chambers). I don't even see the point of blocking someone from reading what you post, since it's open to everyone else and easily copied, and anonymous accounts are easy to create. Seems childish,as much of Musk's reactions tend to be (I see a lot in common with Trump here).

What does FDR have to do with the moral case for oil? Was he against oil consumption for moral reasons?

There's plenty wrong with liberty without rules that protect the interest of the commons, so I suspect objectivism is an incomplete thought, just like any extreme thought.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Yeah, but what does Musk and Mann have to do with Epstein, or anything he has said? I follow 0 people on Twitter, so who's following who, or even how it all works is lost on me (and anyone else similarly disinterested in artificially short, 1-way echo chambers). I don't even see the point of blocking someone from reading what you post, since it's open to everyone else and easily copied, and anonymous accounts are easy to create. Seems childish,as much of Musk's reactions tend to be (I see a lot in common with Trump here).

What does FDR have to do with the moral case for oil? Was he against oil consumption for moral reasons?

There's plenty wrong with liberty without rules that protect the interest of the commons, so I suspect objectivism is an incomplete thought, just like any extreme thought.

In the video it is Epstein who says that he was blocked.
I've never done social media so I'm not qualified to appraise the significance of the gesture.
I am prejudiced against Epstein,so I'd discriminate against him as well.
I'm not willing to tell a story about Mann and Musk's gesture.It's their web account,they can do whatever they want.
Epstein attacked big government.And yet he's a direct beneficiary of it.
Objectivism is an incomplete philosophy.And the price of admission is a surrender of critical thinking,if it was present at the onset.
Epstein crafts his words to move the viewer from the rational to the emotional.
He employs Medieval rhetorical disputation to 'win' his argument.And it's about winning,not seeking truth.
His comments are subjective.He never uses facts.Oh,but he's quick to tell you what an 'intellectual' he is.
He stoops to Ad Hominem attack,trying to destroy the messenger,rather than apply a rigorous examination of the message.
It's my opinion that he's all form,and no substance.

[niky]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

The solution to pollution is dilution.

Only the Russians could have caused the worst nuclear disaster in the world, and even with them trying as hard as possible to create a catastrophe, it's still tame compared to all the life lost with other sources of energy. They won't make the same mistake again, either.

We'll be growing individual organs in the near future, custom programmed with our own DNA so there is no need for anti-rejection/immunosuppression drugs. I like dystopian movies that take technology concepts to an absurd end, but absurdity never happens. Black Mirror was phenomenally entertaining.

I like the concept of growing meat, rather than the whole animal. Seems it holds potential to be humane, and lower energy and space requirements. We're just coming out of the caveman period of genetic understanding, so there is tons of what I consider to be low-hanging fruit in leveraging gene technology.

There is a very, very, VERY old science fiction story wherein meat is grown as an unfeeling, unthinking mass that is raised in much the same way as livestock, and which caretakers regard in the same way that farmers regard pets. A mass that you can cut slabs of meat off of without pain or death... the mass still survives and grows.

I have yet to find it again. I read it way back in the 80's, but believe it to be from the 60's or 70's.

-

Or we could go all Douglas Adams and genetically engineer sentient cows that are all too happy to kill themselves to feed you.

[freebeard]

I don't know where but I can confirm the story, I read it too.

So you're saying Douglas Adams ripped off Al Capp's Schmoon?

[sendler]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

So, you object to Epstein because he makes you feel bad. You've name-called, but provided not a single objection to a claim he has made.

Epstein's emphasis on human flourishing and it's relationship to energy availability that is reliable, cheap and safe is a very frighteningly logical counterpoint to the currently popular and under informed rhetoric of " just leave it in the ground".
.
Any reduction in availability of world primary energy right now would bring a big reduction in standard of living and lifespan.