Non Footy Chat Thread II

[Poupou Escobar]

If 99% of doctors tell me I have lymphoma, notwithstanding me staring at my blood results and related tests, it's unlikely that I will be able to make head nor tail from it. I guess my choice is to go into denial about it and take my chances or take their advice and commence recommended treatment.

I know - I could undertake chemo / radiation therapy and if I go into remission and not die, then rant about how it was a hoax all along and question if the threat was ever there in the first place.

I'm sure Colin could give me tips on being a bombastic old f**kwit.

And what if the treatment bankrupted you and left nothing for your kids?

If AGW is real, and I'm sure it is, we can learn to live with it. In fact plenty of people will benefit from it. Trying to stop it is likely to have no results at massive cost.

 

[Bazal]

Clear thinking merkins acknowledge that we need to transition away from coal fired power. The solution may well be a mix of gas renewables and nuclear. The transition away from coal will depend of reliable alternatives to this baseload problem.

What shits me is the Coal Club saying that the recent SA shit fight was because of LOL renewables LOL the wind stopped and not because of a 1:100 year storm event that destroyed infrastructure.

View attachment 15520

Yes SA may not have their mix right but it does not mean that you put the pen through wind solar etc etc.

I see that the ACT have committed to 100% renewables by 2020. They claim that emerging battery technologies will give them the baseload.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act...et-by-2020-simon-corbell-20160428-goh1l9.html

They are pushing ahead in the UK and getting good results.

At no stage did I say that we don't need to transition away from fossil fuels.

I said the problem is no renewable technology is ready to play a part just yet. Therefore ensuring that we can use fossil fuels in a cleaner and more efficient manner is every bit as important as work on renewable energy. Maybe more so given it can help make an immediate impact on pollution levels.

The thing that gets me about all these wannabe climate activists is the way they fixate on power supply. They used to grow Mediterranean crops in the north of England ffs, so there is a certain element of natural climate change at play and that is undeniable, as is the fact that the balance has been altered. And that has as much to do with our activities outside emissions as it does to do with them.

You see all these social media activists constantly droning on about emissions, which at this stage can only be cut, not eradicated. But you know what will make a huge and fast difference? Banning palm oil. Working to stop logging of old growth rainforest, particularly to clear land for cattle farming. Planting lumber plantations. Working to limit commercial fishing and clean up the oceans, because nothing on earth soaks up carbon like a healthy ocean.

All this focus on energy takes away from things we could be going right now to make an immediate impact, rather than things that are decades away.

Edit. I should also add that it is very very easy for the ACT to commit to 100% renewable energy by 2020, you do know where the majority of our power comes from right?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I don't see the point in continuing to question the science at this point. From my review of it I am not in doubt as to whether it is real.

I just want to make sure that in addressing it we don't do stupid shit like close down the metallurgical coal industry because dopey merkins think you can make steel just with iron ore alone.

Accept your point about shit science in general though. I think science often lets us down in a big way. If scientists were subject to the same level of public scrutiny as proponents undertaking a public Environmental Impact Assessment, their work would be much more robust.

As I said, I believe in anthropocentric climate change. But I also see 'scientists' as an extremely political lobby group strongly invested in big government.

 

[Gary Gutful]

As I said, I believe in anthropocentric climate change. But I also see 'scientists' as an extremely political lobby group strongly invested in big government.

Agreed merkin.

 

[Gary Gutful]

 

[Incorrect]

Edit. I should also add that it is very very easy for the ACT to commit to 100% renewable energy by 2020, you do know where the majority of our power comes from right?

I believe it comes from the energy generated by the incessant Spin that Ricky Stuart puts on in every post match presser after his team loses another game to deflect from his own shortcomings as a coach....

 

[Bazal]

As I said, I believe in anthropocentric climate change. But I also see 'scientists' as an extremely political lobby group strongly invested in big government.

Consensus science is the worst thing that ever happened to science. People working to confirm the paradigm and patting each other in the back when they do. It's the opposite of what science should be about and basically harks back to the days before Darwin published his Origin of Species.

That's not to say that Abbott and his cronies are right about climate change, but there is a gap in our knowledge that no one ever talks about

 

[Gary Gutful]

I believe it comes from the energy generated by the incessant Spin that Ricky Stuart puts on in every post match presser after his team loses another game to deflect from his own shortcomings as a coach....

That's definitely renewable energy!

 

[Gary Gutful]

Concensus science is the worst thing that ever happened to science. People working to confirm the paradigm and patting each other in the back when they do. It's the opposite of what science should be about and basically harks back to the days before Darwin published his Origin of Species.

That's not to say that Abbott and his cronies are right about climate change, but there is a gap in our knowledge that no one ever talks about

You need to be ballsy as a scientist to write a rebuttal against another scientists work, particularly if that scientist is politically connected as Pou suggests.

I've seen examples of where someone has done that and been ostracised. It wouldn't surprise me if the 'science mafia' don't put a horses head in someone's bed if they are a big enough problem.

Doesn't help that often funding rides on perpetuating a problem or publishing a certain number of journal articles. Don't allow for objectivity or completeness.

Yet they consistently poll as highly trustworthy amongst the public, so people like me who work in industry have no choice but to rely on them to solve our problems.

 

[Gronk]

So Abbott is going to cross the floor ...

Proposing to cross the floor on Clean Energy is OK, but not cool for SSM. Treachery in fact.

TONY Abbott has inflamed the same-sex marriage debate, accusing government MPs considering crossing the floor of launching a “serious attack” on Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/to...e/news-story/567d3dbdf4d7eceda77001e271a7c2ef

 

[Bazal]

You need to be ballsy as a scientist to write a rebuttal against another scientists work, particularly if that scientist is politically connected as Pou suggests.

I've seen examples of where someone has done that and been ostracised. It wouldn't surprise me if the 'science mafia' don't put a horses head in someone's bed if they are a big enough problem.

Doesn't help that often funding rides on perpetuating a problem or publishing a certain number of journal articles. Don't allow for objectivity or completeness.

Yet they consistently poll as highly trustworthy amongst the public, so people like me who work in industry have no choice but to rely on them to solve our problems.

Yeah it's a mess. You often can't even get a paper published if it goes against the paradigm. And that's not to say that scientists are publishing papers speaking out against climate change or having those papers censored, what I mean is that there is plenty of conflicting data that we don't really understand yet (as simple examples, why is the Antarctic sea ice growing while the Arctic shrinks? Why are some glaciers melting and some not?) and even investigating that can see a scientist castigated.

I'm sure some social media activist will see this as "climate change denial" or some such garbage if we have any on here, but that in itself is another part of the problem. You cannot ask questions without being attacked...and that's a ridiculous situation for a scientist to be in. Their job is to ask questions and challenge the paradigm, because only by challenging it do you really understand it. So I can understand why so many scientists plod along in their lane, because if you don't, even if you get funding and you aren't given the cold shoulder by your peers moving forward, some group of whackjobs online who don't understand science grabs hold of your work and starts painting you as a "big oil shill" or some bullshit and it's all over.

How quickly people forget the Mann Hockey Stick

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

I've certainly forgotten it.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Living in USA must suck under Trump, agree.

In Australia we have universal health care. Phew.

Yeah he's a old fart climate change denier too. Chiiina made it up apparently.

Oh I thought you were making an analogy. You know, climate change = terminal illness.

 

[Twizzle]

Not a need?

Right, so we just stop developing....Brilliant solution.

I never said stop development, that was your assumption.

You can still make steel without having the power come from coal..

There are a lot more ways of making power than coal fired power stations but the problem with ours is they are outdated. We moved to, or investing in renewables without finding a way to properly store the power we generate so they dont provide enough dispatchable power. We are going to be in limbo in about 5 years time with our power generation.

It would take 5-10 years to start up new ones and investors, in Australia at least, wont risk it as the future seems to be renewables.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

You need to be ballsy as a scientist to write a rebuttal against another scientists work, particularly if that scientist is politically connected as Pou suggests.

I've seen examples of where someone has done that and been ostracised. It wouldn't surprise me if the 'science mafia' don't put a horses head in someone's bed if they are a big enough problem.

Doesn't help that often funding rides on perpetuating a problem or publishing a certain number of journal articles. Don't allow for objectivity or completeness.

Yet they consistently poll as highly trustworthy amongst the public, so people like me who work in industry have no choice but to rely on them to solve our problems.

And the the punters don't understand how the conclusions are reached. They think scientists do some magic trick where they find a piece of conclusive data (or just manage to collect ALL THE DATA), and bang, the conclusions are obvious and irrefutable. They have no inkling that these assessments are made to probabilities a long way from 0% and 100%. If these stupid merkins hear words like 'probably' and 'likely' their reaction is to think the person is just taking a wild guess.

This is why scientists engage the public with language implying certainty, when their conclusions are far from certain.

 

[Gary Gutful]

I never said stop development, that was your assumption.

You can still make steel without having the power come from coal..

There are a lot more ways of making power than coal fired power stations but the problem with ours is they are outdated. We moved to, or investing in renewables without finding a way to properly store the power we generate so they dont provide enough dispatchable power. We are going to be in limbo in about 5 years time with our power generation.

It would take 5-10 years to start up new ones and investors, in Australia at least, wont risk it as the future seems to be renewables.

I'll ask again - How do you make steel at the scale that the world needs without metallurgical coal?

Enlighten me.

 

[Twizzle]

As I explained, the power doesn't need to come from coal. I acknowledge we need coal to make steel, I went to high school too.

And why do we need to supply the world ?

 

[Bazal]

And why do we need to supply the world ?

Well I mean it's not like supplying the world does anything for our economy, right?

 

[Twizzle]

and what do we use when we've sold it all to supply the world ?

 

[Bazal]

and what do we use when we've sold it all to supply the world ?

So we should stop selling a major export and trash our economy just because the export is finite?