Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey

[KMRblue1027]

I'm not saying it wasn't scientific. Maybe there was no good way to present it that didn't touch on politics.

At this point the fact that a fairly sizable faction of American politics has an anti-intellectual fever, literally anything scientific will have political implications let alone a topic like AGW.

 

[Aroddo]

It's a shame that US politicians are even allowed to comment - let alone influence - science.


Link to video.

 

[KMRblue1027]

The snack skit, so good. That's probably the best Stewart's been all year.

 

[Farm Boy]

At this point the fact that a fairly sizable faction of American politics has an anti-intellectual fever

If this is true, to the extent that this is true: why do you suppose this is?

 

[Aroddo]

The snack skit, so good. That's probably the best Stewart's been all year.

The sad thing is that it's not a skit. He is reporting what actually happened while making funny faces and offering sarcastic remarks.

And clowns like that (the politicians, not Jon Stewart) have a say in formulating state policy.

 

[warpus]

My point was the claim: "There is really nothing new that will ever come to light that can change our minds on the subject. So stop looking!"

If that is not the point for constantly telling people their outdated book is wrong, then what is the point for doing so?

The thing about science is that one day maybe we will find proof for a world-wide flood. But we don't have any indication of anything like that ever happening now, so for now we'll file a world-wide flood that happened 6,000 years ago as "false".

If new evidence comes to light, we'll file it under "maybe" and investigate, eventually maybe changing that to a "probably".

But first you'll need some indication that this thing happened. In the absence of such a thing, we're stuck with "didn't happen".

 

[warpus]

Because the issue has been politicized, it's impossible to avoid it. I can't see anything he presented that wasn't scientific.

I had a similar reaction to something he touched on in an earlier episode. I forget what it was, but he made it sound like something that isn't a controversy - something all the experts agree on - is a controversy.

I don't think they should care what idiots out there believe. Stick to the facts and stick to science. If some people are arguing whether the Earth is round or not, that isn't a controversy. That's just a bunch of idiots arguing over something that doesn't concern the rest of us.

edit: whoops, 2 posts in a row

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

My point was the claim: "There is really nothing new that will ever come to light that can change our minds on the subject. So stop looking!"

Can you show me where anyone made that claim?

If that is not the point for constantly telling people their outdated book is wrong, then what is the point for doing so?

As a response to "I'm right because it says so in this outdated book."

I seem to be cursed with an objective point of view

That's a very odd claim to make about yourself.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I had a similar reaction to something he touched on in an earlier episode. I forget what it was, but he made it sound like something that isn't a controversy - something all the experts agree on - is a controversy.

I don't think they should care what idiots out there believe. Stick to the facts and stick to science. If some people are arguing whether the Earth is round or not, that isn't a controversy. That's just a bunch of idiots arguing over something that doesn't concern the rest of us.

edit: whoops, 2 posts in a row

As a tribute I'll do 2 in a row.

I think Mr. Tyson is prone to the same emotion as Mr. Dawkins and those who wrote the scripts to the show. They know how much time and effort went in the research. They know the long road that was taken by many men and women that gives us the insight and immense benefits we are reaping right now.

I bet it's agrevating as hell when people brush it aside that easily and go: scientists predicted cooling in the 70s so they don't know what they're talking about. Especially when it's a result of organised dissinformation. Those people who get duped aren't to blame because they're victims of that dissinformation. But when there are some powerful players promoting it, then they can have an influence on policy making

 

[Farm Boy]

As a tribute I'll do 2 in a row.

I think Mr. Tyson is prone to the same emotion as Mr. Dawkins and those who wrote the scripts to the show. They know how much time and effort went in the research. They know the long road that was taken by many men and women that gives us the insight and immense benefits we are reaping right now.

I bet it's agrevating as hell when people brush it aside that easily and go: scientists predicted cooling in the 70s so they don't know what they're talking about. Especially when it's a result of organised dissinformation. Those people who get duped aren't to blame because they're victims of that dissinformation. But when there are some powerful players promoting it, then they can have an influence on policy making

And how(even though I still don't like either of those two)! It's pretty much exactly the same as trying to deal with the growing anti-food-science/Whole Foods Nation people.

 

[timtofly]

As a tribute I'll do 2 in a row.

I think Mr. Tyson is prone to the same emotion as Mr. Dawkins and those who wrote the scripts to the show. They know how much time and effort went in the research. They know the long road that was taken by many men and women that gives us the insight and immense benefits we are reaping right now.

I bet it's agrevating as hell when people brush it aside that easily and go: scientists predicted cooling in the 70s so they don't know what they're talking about. Especially when it's a result of organised dissinformation. Those people who get duped aren't to blame because they're victims of that dissinformation. But when there are some powerful players promoting it, then they can have an influence on policy making

I tend to like Mr. Tyson and Mr. Dawkins, even if they do get a little preachy. They are story tellers who can bring science to life.

Scientist also do not have to worry about being stoned to death when their predictions fall apart. They may loose their funding and have to change their hypothesis, but a lot of people have to do that in life when it comes to a job and career.

 

[classical_hero]

The thing about science is that one day maybe we will find proof for a world-wide flood. But we don't have any indication of anything like that ever happening now, so for now we'll file a world-wide flood that happened 6,000 years ago as "false".

If new evidence comes to light, we'll file it under "maybe" and investigate, eventually maybe changing that to a "probably".

But first you'll need some indication that this thing happened. In the absence of such a thing, we're stuck with "didn't happen".

What evidence do you need?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Not fossils on mountains, that's for damn sure. Any credible evidence would do.

 

[KMRblue1027]

The sad thing is that it's not a skit. He is reporting what actually happened while making funny faces and offering sarcastic remarks.

And clowns like that (the politicians, not Jon Stewart) have a say in formulating state policy.

Well duh, I guess I should say that's the best material Stewart's been handed this year.

If this is true, to the extent that this is true: why do you suppose this is?

Maybe because one party decided to align itself with the Christian Right decades ago and now that generation of children are now in office?

 

[Farm Boy]

Maybe because one party decided to align itself with the Christian Right decades ago and now that generation of children are now in office?

Possibly part of it. But people tend to follow what they perceive their self-interest to be. Which is great, that's how democracy works. But if one can with a fairly commonly voiced opinion/vibe reduce an entire wing of the populace, an influential one at that, to an anti-science "Christian Right" then there are a lot of implied criticisms in that. Ones that catch more people in your net than I think you want to, and ones that will read the implied disparagement and respond in kind.

 

[El_Machinae]

What evidence do you need?

Evidence? Heck, at this point we need an actual articulated theory. Right now, there's no Creationist geological layer that we can point to and say "this, right here, we think this is the layer caused by the Global Flood." Is it earlier than the K–Pg iridium layer? After? Heck. There's no theory, nevermind evidence.

You might not know this, but you need an actual theory before you can judge evidence. It doesn't even need to be a super-established one, just one sufficient to build testable hypotheses off of.

Because we knew about global warming, what causes it, how it works, and what it will lead to, in 1889, and we did nothing, because:

I like to use 1992 as the beginning of the ticking clock. That's when the widespread scientific consensus percolated sufficiently to convince the majority of global politicians (at Rio). But, to be fair, we're really not sure 'what it will lead to'. We have a reasonable idea, but not a great one in comparison to the opportunity cost for not using fossil fuels. It's a real cointoss at this stage whether in 2099 or in 2199 we'll have seriously regretted not investing more on drastically reducing fossil fuel pollution. The majority of that consumption in the 20th century looks to have been a net win for humans. Were the Green Revolution, the creation of the Internet, and the extinction of Smallpox 'worth it'? Likely. And you will have a real uphill battle suggesting we'd have those successes if we'd aggressively limited carbon output starting in 1889.

If this is true, to the extent that this is true: why do you suppose this is?

I am not sure. Part of it is laziness (evidence: increased time watching TV). Part of it is rebelliousness ("you cannot tell me what to do!"). Part of it is the Scientific Age biting our behinds ('better living through chemistry' has become kinda scary). Part of it is the exceptional amount of knowledge we have (I personally have no idea how a computer works, and I'll never need to).

But, I don't really know. Insight would go a long way bridging the communication barrier.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The majority of that consumption in the 20th century looks to have been a net win for humans.

That very much remains to be seen...

Were the Green Revolution, the creation of the Internet, and the extinction of Smallpox 'worth it'? Likely. And you will have a real uphill battle suggesting we'd have those successes if we'd aggressively limited carbon output starting in 1889.

Well in that case, here's to another century of irreversibly and completely voluntarily warming our planet! Because who knows what we'll accomplish between now and armageddon...

 

[El_Machinae]

No, it doesn't remain to be seen. The fact that we have nuclear, solar, wind, biofuels, etc. all available as options (we didn't in 1889, not really) means that the 20th century fossil fuels are a net win. The counterfactual, where we strongly invested in fossil fuel weaning starting in 1889? Good luck suggesting we'd have discovered those things.

Well in that case, here's to another century of irreversibly and completely voluntarily warming our planet! Because who knows what we'll accomplish between now and armageddon...

But, that's exactly what the debate is. We have to project economic growth WITH global warming vs. economic growth while PREVENTING global warming. We cannot just say that "we must stop all fossil carbon burning" without knowing the effects. Going cold turkey today would be devastating, I daresay it would be more devastating than straight business as usual. That means that some type of weaning scenario should be imagined. Here's the thing, all viable weaning scenarios need to be superior to 'business as usual'. We knew that, the problem is that 'business as usual' includes both growth AND damages. At this point, we're not even 100% sure if the damages will be greater than the growth. We're just 'kinda sure'.

It's the same problem you basically have right now with regards to planning your retirement. You suspect that there's 'some' level of savings that would be wise. You also suspect that your future earnings will be greater than your present earnings. You're not even 100% sure that you're going to live into our retirement very long. It ain't easy.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Screw growth. We don't need growth for growth's sake, that's the ideology of the cancer cell. We should consolidate what we have, get our distribution of existing resources and wealth right, and then advance responsibly in a way which halts and undoes this blight.

The only improvement on before that we are under any obligation to make is that which benefits future generations. Favoring business as usual due to a worship of profit and capital reproduction doesn't do that, it places the future of our civilization upon the sacrificial altar of capitalism and slits its throat open.

 

[El_Machinae]

Screw growth. We don't need growth for growth's sake, that's the ideology of the cancer cell.

Cute quip, but it's fundamentally incorrect. We like growth. If you didn't also like growth, you wouldn't willingly exchange your labour in order to access the internet. You've implicitly bought into the model by willingly buying the fruits of progress. The internet didn't exist when you were born, it was embraced by those hating growth and created by those pursuing growth. And given what it is, it raised all boats.

We should consolidate what we have, get our distribution of existing resources and wealth right, and then advance responsibly in a way which halts and undoes this blight.

I'll not disagree completely. I think that proper distribution of growth is a fundamental question. The goal is to sustainably raise the quality of life for the bottom 1%. After that, it's a question of 'how'. But the grand goal, I agree with. But, that's a separate question from how quickly we battle AGW. Remember, one scenario has us stopping all fertilizer production today, and it's right out.

The only improvement on before that we are under any obligation to make is that which benefits future generations.

Nope, that's not true. We should be improving the lives of people today, too. My parents are going to be alive for at least another 20 years. I want their lives over the next 20 years to get better than it is today.

But, speaking of future generations: you don't think that freedom from smallpox and polio, access to the internet, GPS, and weather forecasts is 'better'? No, of course it is. The hard wean in 1889 would've never created these things. How about cures for malaria, Alzheimer's, and dirty water? Those things don't exist yet. We need growth to get them.
That bottom 1% includes a lot of people with schizophrenia. There's no redistribution of wealth that will make their lives 'good' or even 'acceptable'.

edit: might be best to migrate conversation over to the thread I made devoted to this discussion. The Burning Question and Jevon's Paradox