GasBandit
Staff member
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
Dave
Staff member
Iowa lawmaker put forth a bill that would limit hiring of professors based on their political leanings. To whit: the bill restricts the number of democrats that could be hired to teach in universities.
Turns out his "business degree" is not a degree - it's a certificate from the "Forbco Management School". This is a manager training school set up by Sizzler, much like Hamburger University for McDonald's. And there's no proof he completed the course.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...screpancy-emerges-n726961?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma[DOUBLEPOST=1488417520,1488417477][/DOUBLEPOST]
Turns out his "business degree" is not a degree - it's a certificate from the "Forbco Management School". This is a manager training school set up by Sizzler, much like Hamburger University for McDonald's. And there's no proof he completed the course.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...screpancy-emerges-n726961?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma[DOUBLEPOST=1488417520,1488417477][/DOUBLEPOST]
I got Doc and there's nothing you can do about it! He got my wife drunk - he owes me!
GasBandit
Staff member
Sorry buddy, he'd already pledged himself to my new world order years ago. I can't find the exact post, but he did!
Dave
Staff member
I don't believe you. Without proof my claim reigns supreme.
Psh, none of you want proof. You just want to use Doc to feel superior.
Dave
Staff member
Feel superior? Dude, if society collapsed tomorrow having Doc around MAKES you superior!
GasBandit
Staff member
We'll just see, won't we? When society collapses! You'll see I'm right. About more than one thing!
Necronic
Staff member
I don't know. That's where we look to the hardcore climatologists to start doing their science to start solving that.
I doubt that the gun has fully fired, and I think we can survive it, but it's not going to be pleasant. We've had extinction level events that have dumped massive amounts of greenhouse gases all at once. Sure it killed most major species but the world survived.
We have the advantage of it not being overnight, and having some pretty massive technological capabilities. If we start really working I think you'll be surprised what we can come up with.
Because we've already done it. Many first world countries have reduced their carbon output by over 20%. We aren't where we need to be yet but we've already made gains.
Similarly we can see right now that in many countries they are able to survive on a lot less carbon, like 10% of what we use here. Now...that's...not the best life they have here, but it is possible to live like that.
So you split the difference. On the one hand we are reducing the necessary carbon required to maintain vital industry, and on the other, if things get really bad, and we really have to, we can accept a lower quality of life. We can survive with a lower carbon output per capita, and we can reduce the carbon needed for QOL.
It's not that it doesn't matter, not really. But the thing that really matters is the arguments that form the dissent. I've been following this stuff for quite a while now, and I have yet to see an argument that seems to have any real legitimacy.
I'm not being insincere when I say I want to hear arguments against anthropogenic climate change, I will listen to them. But I've been listening to them for quite a while and just haven't heard anything that sounds like much of an argument.
The whole argument of scientific consensus is a really tricky thing. It's a balancing act between arguments of authority and the fact that not everyone can be an expert in everything. And of course politics just fucks it all up. I spent the better part of a semester in a Philosophy of Science course discussing this. It's remarkable that for as long as science has been advancing the world there is still a lot of...ugh I hate saying this....but uncertainty in what exactly science is.
One of my favorite pieces on this is the work by Karl Popper, he has some excellent writing on the subject and I would suggest you take a peak at it if you're ever interested.
So basically what we need is some sort of quantifiable concentration of greenhouse gas required to start the hypothetical slide towards oblivion. Some sort of sliding scale where you can "dial in" equivalent amounts of water vapor, CO2, CH4, etc. to determine whether we have begun the feedback loop or not.
Then we need to measure whether the world as a whole is currently over that threshold, or under it.
Then we need to determine how big the slice of this "damage" pie chart is that is done annually by humanity.
Then we need to determine how much we could potentially shrink our pie slice, and whether civilization could sustain/grow itself under that sort of restriction, under the assumption that the size of our pie slice DOES actually make the difference between being under or over said threshold.
Once hard data can be associated with each of these steps, then this will be settled, right?
--Patrick
Then we need to measure whether the world as a whole is currently over that threshold, or under it.
Then we need to determine how big the slice of this "damage" pie chart is that is done annually by humanity.
Then we need to determine how much we could potentially shrink our pie slice, and whether civilization could sustain/grow itself under that sort of restriction, under the assumption that the size of our pie slice DOES actually make the difference between being under or over said threshold.
Once hard data can be associated with each of these steps, then this will be settled, right?
--Patrick
No, because people will claim the data is faked, or that scientists are part of an evil cabal/conspiracy, or that the data is simply incorrect. And that is what they will always say until some sort of "Day After Tomorrow" scenario comes to pass.PatrThom said:
Welcome to the new reality of conspiracy theories and "fake news."
Well, actually only Superior till he can't fight the urge to jump out of a post apocalype maintained aircraft with a post apocalypse maintained parachute. Shit gets dicey after that. *Ref. Mad Max movies*
This all really sounds like the people that bought the argument that "Cigarettes don't cause cancer! Look at this Science!!" that was paid for by Big Tabacco, while they or their family were in various stages of Lung Cancer or Emphysema.
Necronic
Staff member
Signed "Staff"
GasBandit
Staff member
That's a rather important consideration, though, considering the economic consequences. Considering...
... that 20% came as part of the greatest economic disaster to hit the west in 15 years.
Also visible from the above chart, CO2 emissions continue to go up despite the cost of CO2 per GDP dollar going down. It won't be enough to find "cleaner" ways to do things, especially as China, India, and the developing world decide it's "their turn" to get wealthy by increasing industry. The real solution in this scenario is to tell wealthy countries they must become poor countries, and tell poor countries they have to stay poor - and not to be a broken record, also tell a whole lot of people in urban centers that the price of food is about to go up exponentially.
Well, it's Gas Bandit's Political Thread, not Gas Bandit's Science Thread
But kidding aside, maybe I can find something when I have more time (Thurs-Fri is my busiest time of the week, and the owner is back in town for the next couple days as well, uggghh) and we can continue along that vein.Got a title? He seems to have written a number of things.
Who the what now?
GasBandit
Staff member
The 2008 recession? Look at the graph man, it wasn't a gradual reduction of 20% over the last 10 years, it was a waterfall then plateau.
Ok. I wanted to be sure of what you were referring to before I called bullshit.
BULLSHIT.
Because connecting the subprime mortgage crisis to reducing emissions is reaching so far up your ass, your hand is coming out of your mouth.
Not really. Because it's time for bed.Oh this is gonna be good.
But feel free to carry on without me. Zzz...
Necronic
Staff member
One of Poppers pieces is titled something like "The Provlem of Induction". There's another one about "Science as Falsification". I have a book at home with a bunch of writings in it, I'll see if I can find the piece I'm thinking of.
You would like it though, he goes off the chain against Marx's methods for developing a view of history.
You would like it though, he goes off the chain against Marx's methods for developing a view of history.
GasBandit
Staff member
The subprime mortgage crisis was the trigger, not the effect.[DOUBLEPOST=1488477771,1488477727][/DOUBLEPOST]
I appreciate it!
Dave
Staff member
Not really. Because it's time for bed.
But feel free to carry on without me. Zzz...
GasBandit
Staff member
You waited 12 hours for my response to Necronic, you can wait 12 hours for DA's response to me
That didn't really work out so well for Peter Parker...
Do you think factories use less electricity and produce less harmful by-products when production is reduced or stopped?
GasBandit
Staff member
It wasn't just banks that were affected, the entire economy - not just of the US but also much of Europe - slowed down. Slower economy means less industry. Less industry means less CO2, both in production and at the power plant providing power.
I do feel the need to point out you're missing one of those typical things about economic evolution. There's better and faster Internet in large parts of Africa than in industrial areas in the United States. They skipped putting down copper lines all over the place and went straight to wireless. They could skip parts of "our" evolution and so could China or India with regard to industry. They're not doing that right now but are repeating our mistakes instead.
Pushing growth countries towards hypermodern ecotech would be in our best interest.
Pushing growth countries towards hypermodern ecotech would be in our best interest.