111–120 of 205 posts
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." Feynman -- In this case, nature will not just not be fooled, it will extract retribution, unfortunately also on those that weren't fooled in the first place.
The old reports were somehow protecting us? Carbon emissions can only be reduced by engineering and manufacturing advances
As am environmentalist, I've talked to many people not living in the US who are losing hope on humanity because of this kind of constant stream of news coming out of the US. I understand how it happens, but I'd hope people understood that Trump's USA is not the world. Just like people in general know not to extrapolate what Putin's administration is doing in Russia, they need to be able to do the same for the USA. At…
Even in the US the vast majority of new power generation is clean energy. EVs and Hybrids are about 20% of new car sales and climbing. Even if there’s a short term road bump with oBBB, battery innovation and costs continue to drive cost down.
The US economy will suffer by not trying to compete in these markets, and will need to depend on other economies more and more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"If we stopped testing right now, we'd have very few cases, if any"
Damn, I forgot about that one. There should be a page with a collection of the most egregious stupidities he said, that you could just link to whenever someone is still arguing in his favor.
"Based on current trends, probably close to zero new cases in US too by end of April"
Many things make me think Elon Musk uniquely benefits from Gell-Mann amnesia but the idea that anyone should have listened to him about anything other than rockets or cars should have been jettisoned right then and there. Because what he was saying was unsupportable by evidence right at the moment he said it.
Instead, here we are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nature has no feelings, there will be no retribution, things will work out just fine, it will just be tough for us, maybe even wiped out, but nature will prevail. life will find a way, look at places where humans get excluded, everything regenerates. It is not a crises of nature, it is a crises of habitat for us as species, and a bunch of other like us.
I think there is also a reality in which our scope of what we care about is widened beyond just the human species. As a species that has such a powerful impact on other beings, it would be nice to try and reduce the amount of unnecessary suffering and pain that we place on them. While we cannot eliminate it, life takes life yadayada, we can reduce it and try to curb the mass extinction that we are actively causing. F…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, most people believe in climate change. In a fundamentally anti-human move, oligarchs have put a climate denier in office so he would push against doing anything about it, as it goes against their short-term interests.
[flagged]
Ironically climate will also rewrite the US and the rest of the world in return. More so that we are losing several important years because the US as a big contributor is now governed by complete climate deniers. Currently having the hottest summer so far, but coolest summer we will see at the same time is something I hoped to never experience.
The US is just choosing to make a huge mistake and not participate in growth markets like clean energy, etc.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." Feynman -- In this case, nature will not just not be fooled, it will extract retribution, unfortunately also on those that weren't fooled in the first place.
Let’s not get carried away with hubris. Nature wrote our genes. Nature made us the way we are. All this nonsense you see going on is ultimately a result of cognitive biased thinking, especially confirmation bias. The fact that we differ so deeply from these biases was not our decision, it was thrust upon us by nature and it helped us survive in an environment very different from the one we found ourselves in now.
That said, nothing about this has been inevitable. So many accidents along the way. There are many other results that have been possible. Our social/political setting may be related with technology but it's wholly unclear how deterministic each step has been.
The study questioned whether heat records are truly increasing and whether extreme weather is worsening. I thought we were past that. I thought that it was now about questioning whether it was human caused, or the size of the impact. Apparently we really are going back, and revisiting basic arithmetic.
I believe in global warming, but the quasi religious responses here are hard to read. Conserving the environment and taking steps to reduce our impact on the planet is a good thing. To that end, I’m ok with believing in global warming. I believe some of the narrative is used for selfish ends (green energy companies are looking to make a profit, too) and abused, but on the whole it’s a noble cause. The replies here th…
Actively rejecting the work of scientists based solely on ideology, that is religion, in the worst sense of the word. They're not heretics. They're just liars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A good example of this is revisions EDIT: of the interpretations :ENDEDIT of historical data: https://www.science.org/content/article/world-1-3%C2%B0c-or-... Apparently the Japanese continued using wooden buckets longer than other navies, resulting in Pacific data being skewed.
Closer reading should tell you that no one, no data scientist at least, is rewriting raw historical data - the temperatures recorded in ships logs by various ships are preserved unaltered. What is discussed there is part of all data interpretation, the transfer functions between raw measures of and the inferred values of .
Does anybody know where I can find a copy of the new report? I'd be interested to read what arguments they came up with.
I think this is the one https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/DOE_Criti... It is really just a collection of 'skeptic' arguments form the last 20 years or so. Science magazie had an article about it https://www.science.org/content/article/contrarian-climate-a...
When asked about the Indian Removal Act, President Andrew Jackson stated that if he had not taken the action, the native peoples would have been wiped out. Effectively he was saving them from genocide.
"According to historian H. W. Brands, Jackson sincerely believed that his population transfer was a "wise and humane policy" that would save the Native Americans from "utter annihilation". Jackson portrayed the removal as a paternalistic act of mercy."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act
https://www.npr.org/2025/02/15/nx-s1-5298683/jd-vance-afd-ge...