#ScienceNotSilence

[Fluffywolf]

That much is clear.

Let's be fair though, you're not helping much either.

From what I gather is that, while you fully support the race for clean energy, the disparity between the western world and eastern world in the form of policies are causing negative effects economically and the one thing that mostly stands in the way of that is the global warming doom sayers no longer allowing a rational economic viewpoint.

It would be better to look at it from a more practical point of view and try to capitalize on potential oppertunities of both becoming self-sustained and clean without creating too much of a divide, and hopefully then cashing in with some sweet export deals.

Very roughly that is, and my apologies if I've failed.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

The composition of our energy portfolio should be determined by the market. Full stop.

We should avail ourselves of all the energy sources available to us while not propping up any industry.

This means that we can keep developing renewable energy, but that unless it can beat fossils in the market it will naturally play a secondary role in energy production.

There seems to be no real cost benefit analysis with regards to green policies. What are the consequences of not pursuing these policies? What is the concrete benefit of pursuing them?

What are the economic impacts? Are those outweighed by some vague undefined benefit to accrue in the future?

It is my opinion that we should not sacrifice economic growth to pursue green policy. I'm down with doing what we can beyond that, but anything that negatively impacts the economy must be shown to provide some greater advantage somewhere else. And that has not happened.

At most the argument seems to be, "pursue these policies because we'll call you anti science if you don't".

Until we can have a real conversation about what the costs to the nation will be to pursue these policies, I oppose enacting them.

 

[nonsequitur]

Let's be fair though, you're not helping much either.

From what I gather is that, while you fully support the race for clean energy, the disparity between the western world and eastern world in the form of policies are causing negative effects economically and the one thing that mostly stands in the way of that is the global warming doom sayers no longer allowing a rational economic viewpoint.

It would be better to look at it from a more practical point of view and try to capitalize on potential oppertunities of both becoming self-sustained and clean without creating too much of a divide, and hopefully then cashing in with some sweet export deals.

Very roughly that is, and my apologies if I've failed.

Thanks for the translation attempt. I try not to read between the lines and clarify everything. I really didn't understand there.

The composition of our energy portfolio should be determined by the market. Full stop.

We should avail ourselves of all the energy sources available to us while not propping up any industry.

This means that we can keep developing renewable energy, but that unless it can beat fossils in the market it will naturally play a secondary role in energy production.

I see now why you make reference to the left/right. We definitely disagree that the market should be the defining factor.

I believe that the market plays some role but that established technologies will always have an advantage (i.e. that the market is never really 'free') and that certain technologies can be encouraged. In certain areas with open spaces and lots of sunlight, for example, towns/people could set up solar panels and even sell electricity back to the grid. It's a small business opportunity that can be encouraged with investment and tax breaks. The limiting paradigm is that it has to "beat" fossils. It's not about eliminating fossils entirely. As long as there is progress made to reduce emissions in combination with other nations, there will be an effect on climate. India and China continue to burn fossils as we speak, but prioritise developing renewable/clean energy for climate and economic reasons. It's doable.

There seems to be no real cost benefit analysis with regards to green policies. What are the consequences of not pursuing these policies? What is the concrete benefit of pursuing them?

What are the economic impacts? Are those outweighed by some vague undefined benefit to accrue in the future?

It is my opinion that we should not sacrifice economic growth to pursue green policy. I'm down with doing what we can beyond that, but anything that negatively impacts the economy must be shown to provide some greater advantage somewhere else. And that has not happened.

At most the argument seems to be, "pursue these policies because we'll call you anti science if you don't".

Until we can have a real conversation about what the costs to the nation will be to pursue these policies, I oppose enacting them.

For the EU: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148112003643

An assessment is made as to whether renewable energy use for electricity generation in the EU was beneficial throughout the cycle of high and low oil prices. Costs and benefits are calculated with the EU statistics for the period of low oil prices 1998–2002 and high oil prices 2003–2009. The share of renewable energy in electricity production was 21% of all energy resources in 2008, growing on average 5% a year during 2003–2008 compared to nil growth of the fossil fuels mix. Correlations show significant impacts of growing renewable energy use on changes in consumers' electricity prices during the high and rapidly increasing fossil fuel prices in the period 2005–2008. The growing use has contributed to price decrease in most countries that use more renewable energy and price increase in many countries that use little renewable energy.

The Scottish government has also done one in 2013: http://www.ems.expertgrupp.se/Uploads/Documents/7-jan-2013/EMS_2012_5.pdf They're on track to be fossil fuel free by 2030. UK wind power smashes records as Scotland eyes fossil-free future

I don't think economic growth need necessarily be sacrificed - the jobs would just be created in a different industry. There are a few countries that operate mostly on renewables now: Where in the world have we achieved 100% renewable power?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Like I said. We disagree.

 

[nonsequitur]

Like I said. We disagree.

That's all good, I did want to understand. Thanks for your explanation and contributions.

 

[Coriolis]

Considering this is an issue that affects all of is, I'm kind of frustrated the international community gets no vote on who you guys put in the white house, given the leanings of certain people you tend to elect. I get that that is not feasible, but it is seriously annoying to stand by helplessly like this when this issue does affect all of us. It's one thing to do whatever the fuck you want within your own borders but.../rant.

Yes, the international community has no control over who becomes our president (unless they are Russian hackers), but they certainly DO have control over their response. They can decline to visit, as the president of Mexico just did; and decline to invite US officials for visits. They can marginalize our president in international summits, and discontinue collaboration in crime fighting and intelligence collection. They can react more personally and cease to do any business with Trump companies, or even kick them out of their nations. Alas, too many in the international community seem eager to play ball with our new Narcissist-in-chief.

I don't necessarily see addressing climate change as hobbling the economy. Like [MENTION=6643]Fluffywolf[/MENTION] said, shifting to renewables/clean energy will open up new economies for the US. In fact, China itself has been shifting towards generation of clean energy itself.

If even some of the less dire climate change predictions are accurate, it behooves us to get moving now on a shift to clean energy and other mitigation strategies. If we pursue such measures, and the problems predicted don't come to pass, what harm will be done? We will have made a major investment in energy technology for the future, stimulated a great deal of scientific and technological advances, and created well-paying jobs.

Consider our investment in the space program in the 1960's and '70's. We didn't undertake that to address some immanent or predicted natural crisis, but simply to best the Soviet Union in a game of political one-upsmanship. Climate change is at least as strong a justification as that.

It's the climate change policies espoused by the left, and their catastrophic predictions I disagree with. And the fact that if you disagree with those policies you are treated like you are an idiot who doesn't understand science.

It is fine, in fact necessary, to debate the best ways to address climate change. That is the discussion that should be happening. We cannot have that discussion, though, until everyone at least agrees that there is a problem. That discussion should be over.

The composition of our energy portfolio should be determined by the market. Full stop.

Until we can have a real conversation about what the costs to the nation will be to pursue these policies, I oppose enacting them.

That conversation needs to include the costs to the nation of not pursuing policies to mitigate climate change. Some activities, like national defense and public health/safety, are too important to be determined by "the market". Ensuring the environment remains habitable likewise falls into this category.

 

[nonsequitur]

Yes, the international community has no control over who becomes our president (unless they are Russian hackers), but they certainly DO have control over their response. They can decline to visit, as the president of Mexico just did; and decline to invite US officials for visits. They can marginalize our president in international summits, and discontinue collaboration in crime fighting and intelligence collection. They can react more personally and cease to do any business with Trump companies, or even kick them out of their nations. Alas, too many in the international community seem eager to play ball with our new Narcissist-in-chief.

I actually disagree with this. Further isolating the US president will result in more crazy and lashing out. I see certain leaders (for e.g. Theresa May) engaging him as being a purely pragmatic approach that will yield dividends. Putin knows how to "play" Trump and get him on board. The president of Mexico is stuck because if he's seen to work with Trump after all of that rhetoric, he'll be hung by his own constituency. If Trump is going to be there for 4 years, alienating him will work against the interests of other international leaders. That's the way that I read the situation. I think that Germany has to have a stronger response, by definition, because of its history with the Nazis and local disgust directed at Trump. That's how I read what's going on.

If even some of the less dire climate change predictions are accurate, it behooves us to get moving now on a shift to clean energy and other mitigation strategies. If we pursue such measures, and the problems predicted don't come to pass, what harm will be done? We will have made a major investment in energy technology for the future, stimulated a great deal of scientific and technological advances, and created well-paying jobs.

Consider our investment in the space program in the 1960's and '70's. We didn't undertake that to address some immanent or predicted natural crisis, but simply to best the Soviet Union in a game of political one-upsmanship. Climate change is at least as strong a justification as that.

Obviously, I agree with this. Renewables/clean energy are infinite and fossil fuels are not. It's a far more sustainable way of living and an investment for the future. Investment in new technologies always begets further advances in different fields that will then beget even more jobs. A report released today showed that the solar and wind industries are each creating jobs at a rate 12 times faster than that of the rest of the U.S. economy.

The study, published by the Environmental Defense Fund's (EDF) Climate Corps program, says that solar and wind jobs have grown at rates of about 20% annually in recent years, and sustainability now collectively represents four to four and a half million jobs in the U.S., up from 3.4 million in 2011.

The renewable energy sector has seen rapid growth over recent years, driven largely by significant reductions in manufacturing and installation costs. Building developers and owners have been fueled by state and local building efficiency policies and incentives, the report explains.
But, these gains are in contrast to Trump's support for fossil fuel production, his climate change denial and his belief that renewable energy is a "bad investment".

As the world shifts towards automation, information technology and creative industries, it makes sense to orient the direction of energy investment forwards instead of backwards. That's the economic way of looking at it, of course. There are several good reasons for doing this, and climate change is just one of them.

It is fine, in fact necessary, to debate the best ways to address climate change. That is the discussion that should be happening. We cannot have that discussion, though, until everyone at least agrees that there is a problem. That discussion should be over.

Absolutely, that's why I started this. When the leader of the 2nd largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world claims that climate change is a conspiracy by the Chinese to enable it to engage in economic warfare, gags government agencies to stop them from talking to congress and the public, freezes funding to said agencies, pulls references to climate change from its government websites and starts culling data, this sends a very strong message. It's the reason why so many people have suddenly started speaking up.

That conversation needs to include the costs to the nation of not pursuing policies to mitigate climate change. Some activities, like national defense and public health/safety, are too important to be determined by "the market". Ensuring the environment remains habitable likewise falls into this category.

There's already been discussion about the national security implications for climate change: The Department of Defense Must Plan for the National Security Implications of Climate Change | whitehouse.gov
The thing about climate change is that it impacts so many different things, from economics to refugees to food to housing planning. The union of concerned scientists have put this pamphlet together on the cost of inaction - it's pretty informative. http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default.../global_warming/climate-costs-of-inaction.pdf

 

[Carpe Vinum]

My point is the disconnection between studies showing that the climate is changing, and the assertion as objective truth that if we don't do what the sierra club, democrats, green peace et al. wants that it will be the end of the world in the next 100 years.

I'm down for not needlessly polluting, but until folks stop acting like the world is literally ending over this stuff, the debate can't be taken seriously.

DB, I agree with this. I see the problem as both sides of the political spectrum lacking introspection. Liberals can't see the alarmism on their side of things, and too many conservatives are so reactionary to the alarmism that they ignore the science of climate change altogether.

We need rationalism on both sides.

Also, just to throw it out there: IMHO the free market is a better solution to climate change problems than creating more government, laws, and business regulations. Republicans should stand behind this AND stand behind science. They don't have to pick and choose.

 

[nonsequitur]

So I kinda got swamped at work. Just dropping by for a bit of scicomm.

I previously posted before about scientists getting involved in the political process and Michael Eisen running for the US senate: Geneticist launches bid for US Senate : Nature News & Comment

Today Mike Eisen shared this on twitter: Twitter

Thirty years ago today my father died for defending truth and honesty in science.

Howard J. Eisen studied steroid hormone receptors.

I spent the summer of 1986, following my freshman year in college, working at the NIH, and got to know a bit about my father's work. When I came home for Thanksgiving that fall, he was distracted, scribbling on papers and working out all sorts of stuff on pads of paper. It turns out he had discovered that someone in his group had committed fraud - making up data - and he had designed a trap to catch him. For months he worked diligently to expose the fraud carried out by a scientist he had not hired and did not supervise. He succeeded, and the NIH launched an investigation. But the perpetrator of the fraud fled and did not appear to be questioned. Instead of celebrating my father as a hero, it appears that the NIH turned on him instead. I don't know exactly what happened with the investigation, but he felt the NIH was accusing him of letting the fraud happen. I have filed FOIA requests to try and find out what went on in the hearings, but I never received any useful information. But on 2/7/87 my father, who had apparently struggled with depression his whole life (I never knew) hung himself in our basement. I was 19 - a sophomore in college - and it absolutely wrecked me. I went into a tailspin that took me almost a decade to really come out of.

I sleepwalked through the rest of college, and started graduate school more or less out of default. Without some really amazing friends I never would have made it through those next few years. I also took refuge in animals and the woods - two things my father loved and taught me to love. I was successful in grad school, but, honestly, I was completely nuts - afraid of everything and lost in spiraling OCD. Somehow I pulled myself out of it (that's a story for another day). As I got more clearheaded, I had a deep conflict in my mind to resolve. My father was the most sincere, honest & devoted scientist there could be. But "science" and its institutions in a very real way killed him. This conflict has been with me my whole career, as I have become more and more a part of those institutions. I trust and love science, but deeply distrust its institutions - they care more about themselves than the people who make them work. And so I ask you, in my father's memory, as you fight for science, also fight to make science a more supportive and caring enterprise. So when you fight for the place of science in the world, also be willing to stand up to our own scientific institutions. And above all else, remember that scientists are not machines, but people, with all their incumbent weaknesses, who often need our support.

Howard Eisen's case also reminded me of this: Stem cell scientist found dead in apparent suicide - BBC News There are people who care, deeply (almost too much) about honor and integrity in science. Their stories need to be told.

There's been quite a bit of conversation and arguing in the community about whether or not scientists should get politically involved, and I read a good article about this topic today: https://theconversation.com/should-scientists-engage-in-activism-72234

Edwards and his colleagues, we would argue, are part of a long tradition of bridging the worlds of science and policy. They have been instrumental in bringing not only attention but change to the beleaguered city of Flint. And money: Thanks in part to their pressure, the Senate in September voted overwhelmingly to approve $100 million in aid for Flint, and hundreds of millions more in loans from the Environmental Protection Agency for upgrading municipal water infrastructures and studying exposure to lead.

In a stinging rebuke to Sedlak, Edwards and three coauthors – Amy Pruden, Siddhartha Roy and William Rhoads – blasted the critical editorial as a “devastating, self-indictment of cowardice and perverse incentives in modern academia.”

Indeed, scientists who accept funding with the tacit agreement that they keep their mouths shut about the government are far more threatening to an independent academy than those who speak their minds.

Since Nov. 8, it has been painfully clear that science will be playing defense for a while. The United States has never seen a regime so hostile to science and the value of the scientific method. President Donald Trump has declared climate change a “hoax” cooked up by the Chinese. He has flirted seriously with debunked anti-vaccination views and declared that polls (read, data) that are negative about his ambitions are “fake news.”

Science and politics are not always compatible. And science need not always triumph over policy: After all, research shows that steroids improve athletic performance, but we have a compelling political interest to ban them. The same can be said of eugenics. Research must always be ethical, and ethics is a conversation that includes scientists and policymakers.

Still, while the two domains are separate, the divide is, and should be, bridgeable. As Edwards and his colleagues write, “The personal and professional peril is great, the critics are numerous and vocal, but staying silent is to be complicit in perpetrating injustice. And no matter what may come of the rest of our lives or careers, we are certain of one thing: Flint was a community worth going out on a limb for, and by upholding a just cause, we enhanced the social contract between academics and the public.”

That could easily be said of the March for Science. Except now it’s not just a limb but the entire tree that’s in peril.

I just wanted to put a human face to what's often considered an abstract, monolithic enterprise, and to encourage people to join the march for science on Earth Day, 22nd April. It's not just for scientists! There are satellite marches all over the US and in major cities around the world, so if you're interested, please check it out. There's also a facebook page with updates: https://www.facebook.com/marchforscience

 

[Coriolis]

I actually disagree with this. Further isolating the US president will result in more crazy and lashing out. I see certain leaders (for e.g. Theresa May) engaging him as being a purely pragmatic approach that will yield dividends. Putin knows how to "play" Trump and get him on board. The president of Mexico is stuck because if he's seen to work with Trump after all of that rhetoric, he'll be hung by his own constituency. If Trump is going to be there for 4 years, alienating him will work against the interests of other international leaders. That's the way that I read the situation. I think that Germany has to have a stronger response, by definition, because of its history with the Nazis and local disgust directed at Trump. That's how I read what's going on.

Treating the US president like any other just legitimizes him and his policies. Better to focus on strengthening bilateral and multilateral ties on other levels, with business, NGOs, lower levels of government such as sister-cities programs, even others in the administration, like UN Ambassador Nikki Haley who right now seems far more reasonable than trump. I suppose it's sort of a reverse good cop/bad cop routine, in which you work with and reward those who are reasonable. The UK is on the right track with Trump's upcoming visit. I'm surprised, though, that the Queen will give him the time of day.

 

[Passacaglia]

[MENTION=5076]nonsequitur[/MENTION] Just want to say thanks for starting this thread! I don't post much anymore, but I'm very much enjoying this.

As to climate politics:

I swear with too many people, you get a bull elephant charging in their general direction and they'll use whatever they have to kill it even if they haven't got an elephant gun. A handgun, a beebee gun, some Legolas bow-stunt, a kitchen knife, anything. But put that elephant an uncertain time in the future, get it charging directly at the entirety of humanity, and suddenly "Hope for the best, plan for the worst" goes right out the window. "Oh gee golly, nothin' to be done, that elephant'll probably veer away before it hits us, got more immediate problems to worry about, and then there's the 11th Commandment* to consider..."

*The Free Market is the Way and the Truth, and thou shalt have no other economy but It.

Some people are just too dogmatic / self-interested / present-preoccupied to care about future generations. If we want them on board, we need to appeal to their interests. Start a record of all the liars and the obstructionists that will be passed down the generations, so that their descendants know exactly who to blame for whatever planet they are left with. Start telling people that carbon emissions are a reducing their libidos and destroying the country's hops supply.

But anyway, this isn't a political thread, so I'm done with this.

 

[Blackout]

I think the whole western continent is sort of in and the solution to escaping this situation isn't really simple or black and white and i think that for now the only solution is unfortunately to reverse things a little bit. Or at least, there's a large percentage of the populis who's livelihood depends on such at thing and as well I think that the outcome will be severe for everyone (or could be) if things do not change.

 

[ceecee]

DB, I agree with this. I see the problem as both sides of the political spectrum lacking introspection. Liberals can't see the alarmism on their side of things, and too many conservatives are so reactionary to the alarmism that they ignore the science of climate change altogether.

We need rationalism on both sides.

Also, just to throw it out there: IMHO the free market is a better solution to climate change problems than creating more government, laws, and business regulations. Republicans should stand behind this AND stand behind science. They don't have to pick and choose.

They should and probably already do. Many of their constituency do not. There's the rub.