DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus US should put nuclear reactors on moon before other countries do, acting NASA administrator says

So those things have only been going on for 80 to 100 years right??? When we can compare these events with what has happened over the last 10,000's of years then we can get a better picture.

What do you suggest we start doing until that data comes in, say around 8000 years from now? Burn all the fuel. Burn all the coal?


Pretty sad that I’ve personally witnessed our aged population thinking this way. Their life is at the dusk and thinking about the future is pointless.

I can list far more when they were right. There's only one problem with your "I guess we'll see."

If you're wrong your I guess we'll see could end up being the destruction of mankind. The evidence is there and common sense should prevail here. Pollution doesn't just escape into the universe. It's held within our atmosphere the same way oxygen doesn't escape into the universe and all of us suffocate. That's the same way a fence is around your back yard keeping your pets from escaping. Like I said, if you keep throwing a bag of trash in your back yard every week soon your back yard becomes a garbage dump. The same applies to our atmosphere.

And you seem to be willing to use any excuse you can find based on zero evidence to deny that's true. Sadly that isn't like a bet at the casino where you lose a little money. This is a gamble you're willing to make based on nothing that could be the end for future generations. With a gamble like that I would think you would try to do a little more research. But I guess not.

See that's a classic piece of deflection and avoidance. The only data we have is for weather events that are available since we started recording such things consistently.

Your arguement is to ignore what we can measure because we can't measure everything. Sorry but there's no other way to put it. That is absurd.

...which makes my point for me.

Science is often wrong. Being wrong is actually baked into how the whole thing works. It's a feature- not a bug.
Being fact-checked by other peer researchers is baked-in, as well. That's how this thing is supposed to work.

What science affords us is the process... an endless, peer-reviewed series of steps to get us closer to the truth.
This has been true since the Age of Enlightenment (500 hundred+ years of recorded history).


The difference between those who follow/understand the process and those who choose to focus on its miscalculations is this:

1. One group expects/demands science to correct its miscalculations over the passage of time.
2. The other group uses those regular miscalculations to cast doubt upon the process.

______________

One group signs on to the process in good faith, using historical success as their model.
The other group uses science's failures as as an excuse to discount any findings said process may provide.

One subject/two different takes.
My personal bias is clear: I prefer Process over Protest. Science is a rigorous intellectual discipline- not a religion. Belief lasts only as long as it can survive verifiable fact to the contrary.

500 years of scientific advances support my side of this line of thought.


.02,
clem.

So according to you the FACTS don't matter. What ever happened for 1,000's 10,000's of thousands, or even millions of years here on earth don't matter because we didn't write it all down and study it better? Now that my friend IS DEFLECTION and AVOIDANCE.

Nope. If there was any way to know any facts from the Period of time we were not recording these events, we would use them. But you dont have facts, you have "we dont know". Those teo things are worlds apart. I prefer to look at whatever evidence we have and draw the best and most logical conclusion from that available information. If you want to dismiss that information and say "but we dont know about the unrecorded events over the last millennium" ... Thats your call, I'll disagree with you all day.

Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

Nobody in all the years on this board has talked about all the OTHER times the earth has warmed or cooled (And yes it has way before man was burning fossil fuels) what caused those??? I agree than man is speeding the process along now, but how much of that is caused by population. in 1990 we had 1.6 billion people living on this earth. Now only 125 years later we have 8.2 billion, Hell if you want to go back just a short time as far as history goes in the year 1,000 AD we only had about 284 million people living on earth.

You see I don't disagree with you that the world is warming, I don't disagree with you that it is happening faster than it use to. I'm not disagreeing with you that we need to find other forms of energy. I think the biggest driver to all of this is the population yet nobody discusses that. The limited resources on this planet will only sustain so many people and if we don;t blow ourselves up first, or all die from some new epidemic we will reach that point at some time in the future.

I can get behind just about every word of that post. I'm a little less focused on the population there world can sustain because that's been a topic done the 1800s. Valuing and preserving the earth's resources and finding renewable or recycling as much as we can is a good start in the here and now
. Along with continued study and education.... Just like we have largely phased out CFCs we should also seek to limit other pollutants that we believe to have a long term detrimental impact.

I guess the bottom line, given what is at stake I'd place more weight on what we can see and record than seem to minimise the data's importance based on what we don't know. Change and rate of change are linked but rate of change is very significant.

I am not saying that at all. I am not anti-science. Even if everything you and others point out, my position is there isn't much we can do about it as long as the planet is maybe 30% or more over populated.

If a place on earth can't grow enough food to feed the population, there are too many people living there.

I'm, not sure if you were to say this real slow to yourself it would make much sense but maybe give it a try....................

We should dismiss what we do know now because of what we don't know about then.

You could say the same about the future.

Maybe try to say thing in a less condescending way and people around he might start to like you.

Just a friendly thought.

I don't really give a damn about who likes me. Maybe if you would stop interpreting everything you don't like as being condescending that may help.

Here is the difference. In terms of the future you can look at the trend in current statistics at hand to project them forward. You have a wealth of information to base that on.

When you have zero data from the past with which to base anything on it is a complete unknown.

You've known me for well over 20 years now. I was much more civil in my discussions then. But since 2015 I've watched millions upon millions of Americans support and even vote for a man that's much nastier than I am. I heard them scream about hating PC and sugar coating everything because it limited free speech. It's what your side wanted. It's what your side supported. It's what your side elected. I watched someone of your political persuasion come here and call people libtards year after year and you didn't have a word to say about any of that. I'm being exactly who and what your side has advocated for all along.

The tactics I use on this board are the tactics you have supported or stayed silent about. My tactics are a much milder version of the tactics the president uses. Yet when it comes to me it's suddenly an issue for you?

I'm not the president. I'm just some guy posting on a message board. I'm not important in the grand scheme of things. Maybe you should take your message somewhere it actually means something.

Well said, Clem. Scientists have been wrong, but going through the fire of trials over time like you said is part of how we have advanced so much as a society since we came out of the Dark Ages.

I would also add that I would like to compare the “wrong rate” of scientists vs everyone else. If we didn’t rely on scientific advancement we’d still be prescribing cocaine for people diagnosed with “ghosts in their blood.”

Sadly, it feels as though we are trending toward practicing the latter. The amount of conspiracy theorists and people who have no proof, or no expertise in an area say things with absolute conviction. Most of the time it’s because politics have malignantly infected every realm of their thought processes.

Back to my favorite quote from Stephen Hawking: “The enemy of knowledge is not ignorance. The enemy of knowledge is the illusion of knowledge.”

So you mimic those you don't like?

It doesn't make sense to me, but if it makes sense to you, carry on.

Let me break it down for you. You want to use stats but you want to ignore most of the stats. It's like you declaring Deshaun Watson one of the greatest QB's ever based on his 2020 season, while ignore the rest of his career. Makes me miss Diam for a second.

That would be impossible to do here on Dawgtalkers. If I mimicked trump on Dawgtalkers I would be getting banned on a regular basis. I would be launching personal attacks and calling people names. Both of those things are against the rules and would draw suspensions. I would publicly be using curse words you can not post here without getting banned or being censored. No, I could never get away with mimicking trump here.

It really has nothing to do with mimicking anyone. It does have to do with communicating with people on a level they endorsed, supported and voted for. Not nearly to the degree the man they voted for to rule this country does. Not by a long shot. Once again they don't have a damned word to say about any of that when he does it. As long as it comes from people they agree with it appears to be just fine.

And as far as "those" which is plural, there really isn't anyone on Dawgtalkers that I dislike. There are people on here that have made it obvious they dislike me who have never met me and don't know me based strictly on politics. And once again, I don't care.

I've never sucked up to people or craved the approval of others. That's something I think you already knew about me. You having met me I think you know I have also never been one to sugar coat things or be PC.

I don't take any of this personally. It's nothing more or less than a reflection of the political climate in our nation today. I don't dislike or hate anyone over their politics. There are others with thinner skin that can't seem to separate political conflict from who a person is as a human being. Then they call the other side the snowflakes. Yet another thing you've ignored. It's hilarious.

I like you Peen. I always have. The fact that we don't share the same politics has no impact on that. If that's a bridge too far for you so be it.

Like I said, it's odd how you wish to pick and choose who you decided to address your concerns to and all of those you've chosen to ignore. But if that makes sense to you, carry on.

I haven't seen you post what you describe as "most of the facts". What we have been discussing is that the known history and statistics on weather only go back so far and beyond that time we have no stats. I would be very open to looking at and discussing what you claim are "most of the facts" if you would be willing to present them.

Along these lines, I sometimes wonder if we're pushing on the right things.

I do think we need to be constantly trying to improve our impact on the environment... but when China and India are putting out the lion's share of "bad stuff" how much impact can we have here vs influencing them to clean themselves up?

Are you sure of your facts there?? I posted the pet capita numbers the other day, included with them are the totals by nation. USA is right up there.

In addition to that, on what basis do you assume China has not done as much or more than the usa to reduce its pollution?? I admit to being off the same mindset until i visited about 7 or 8 years ago for work and learned from factory owners what changes they had been required to make.

You don't even know when you do it.

Here are the numbers that count. It more about what countries have done to reduce or increase pollution.


https://www.statista.com/statistics/270500/percentage-change-in-co2-emissions-in-selected-countries/

I will go back on topic.

The worst reason that I can think of to put a nuclear reactor on the moon is because another country (China) may do it. Fantasy Land. Let them spend Billions or Trillions doing that.

I agree that science is a process. The scientific method. It's like peeling an onion. One layer after another. It's more a process of elimination. Rarely is it a hit on the first go.


It's called practicing medicine for a reason.

Science denialism is such a powerful force because it capitalizes on the complexity of the world to offer a convincing story that the latest temporary befuddlement of scientists is a symptom of a larger fundamental failure of the scientific method -- while the very nature of the scientific method means that scientists will always be confronting their own temporary befuddlement.

Actually if you want a fair and balanced read, if long, then this is a good source


https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/mar/27/us-versus-china-which-nation-doing-more-address-cl/

In addition to CO2, or rather looking broader than CO2 at emissions in general China has been very proactive and successful as a result of a 2013 (?) policy. Its certainly more nuanced then "China Bad" or somehow that it doesnt matter what the usa does or doesnt do "because China".

That's actually some pretty weak stuff. As per usual you refuse to engage or address anything I posted. You address some every day person on a message board while ignoring the leader of our nation who actually holds the power to make a difference. And nearly everything you posted I shot down. But you're just doing you so I get it.

Thank you for correcting me. China is where I thought it was. I thought India was higher. I do believe that they are "vying" for that second spot while we are reducing.

China may be enacting some environmentally friendly practices, but they have a LOT further to go.