Science Science Cringe Megathread

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
We need a science cringe megathread for stuff like this.


Apparently, human pollution was actually reducing global warming. Of course, the scientists aren't going to admit their entire model system was wrong, just present it as if they always knew this and by the way here's a new model of climate change explaining how pollution reduces global warming.

In general, human emissions of particles cool the planet by scattering away sunlight in the clear sky and by making clouds brighter to reflect sunlight away from the earth.

Somebody needs to tell Greta Thunberg to get on that and ask liberals how dare they burn less coal.
 

Robovski

Well-known member
Solar input is something we lack a lot of data on, as it may come to be a surprise, but solar input is actually a bit variable and is where the bulk of the energy (including heat) comes from in our atmosphere. Reflecting energy out is something that clouds and icecaps do, and basically anything shiny or reflective to some degree. That Greenhouse Effect you may have heard of is another form of reflection; this time of infrared (aka heat) caused by gasses such as carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere but also clouds and water vapor and so on, this time reflecting light converted down to infrared when it hit the surface of the Earth back again. We need this effect to really have the habitable and comfortable world we live in, or too much would be lost. Being skeptical of the scientific community's ability to model or understand these complex systems fully will usually get you called a climate change denier or such.
 
We need a science cringe megathread for stuff like this.


Apparently, human pollution was actually reducing global warming. Of course, the scientists aren't going to admit their entire model system was wrong, just present it as if they always knew this and by the way here's a new model of climate change explaining how pollution reduces global warming.

In general, human emissions of particles cool the planet by scattering away sunlight in the clear sky and by making clouds brighter to reflect sunlight away from the earth.

Somebody needs to tell Greta Thunberg to get on that and ask liberals how dare they burn less coal.
Oh me oh my it's almost as is the present narrative around man-made climate change is a mirage designed by international finance to create a generation of obnoxious tryhard nihilists whose shallow rebelliousness conveniently goes along with every "scientific" explanation for why they have to give up more and more freedoms for "sustainability" because even though money rules the world somehow scientists would never accept bribes to tweak or omit scientific studies.
 

Scottty

Well-known member
Founder
We need a science cringe megathread for stuff like this.


Apparently, human pollution was actually reducing global warming. Of course, the scientists aren't going to admit their entire model system was wrong, just present it as if they always knew this and by the way here's a new model of climate change explaining how pollution reduces global warming.

In general, human emissions of particles cool the planet by scattering away sunlight in the clear sky and by making clouds brighter to reflect sunlight away from the earth.

Somebody needs to tell Greta Thunberg to get on that and ask liberals how dare they burn less coal.

And this of course has nothing to do with placating a certain country where the pollution gets so bad people can't see across the street, right?


Actually, the idea that industrial emissions can reflect sunlight away from the earth is nothing new. A few decades back, when "Another Ice Age" was the big scare, these arguments were common.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
And this of course has nothing to do with placating a certain country where the pollution gets so bad people can't see across the street, right?


Actually, the idea that industrial emissions can reflect sunlight away from the earth is nothing new. A few decades back, when "Another Ice Age" was the big scare, these arguments were common.
This is why I just don't care if climate change is a thing or not; it's too difficult to tell what's true and what isn't at this point, what with all the propaganda and ulterior motives behind it all. Besides; cleaning up the environment and keeping it clean in general doesn't need any greater justification. And if it what you specifically want to do does? Then you're probably doing more harm than good in the first place.
 

LTR

Don't Look Back In Anger
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
Good idea for a thread. I say this because I found an article from 2019 linking the eating of meat with toxic masculinity.


My favorite gem

No. 3: Meat is a symbol of white-male privilege
According to Carol Adams, a feminist-vegan advocate and author of the book The Sexual Politics of Meat, the myth that you need meat for strength is “traceable to this intersection of colonialism, white supremacy, and masculinity.”

Historically, Adams says red meat was a luxury reserved for aristocrats, who, at the turn of the 19th century, were largely male and white. The bourgeois didn’t hunt or raise the cattle they ate; servants and peasants did all the physical work, though they themselves couldn’t afford to eat meat on a regular basis.

Regardless, Europeans upheld the concept that meat equals strength, masculinity, and ultimately, superiority. Adams notes that the English bragged about how they were able to colonize India because their soldiers ate red meat unlike the native men. She also mentions that in World War II, the US and UK rationed meat at home so that soldiers on the front lines would have more fuel for the fight. The governments also launched a victory-garden initiative using propaganda that featured only women planting and harvesting vegetables.

This is science!
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
Were aristocrats really even all white and male? I would think given the way that worked, the percentage of female aristocrats would be about half. Were all of the males marrying commoners?
 

ATP

Well-known member
Were aristocrats really even all white and male? I would think given the way that worked, the percentage of female aristocrats would be about half. Were all of the males marrying commoners?
Only in fairy-tales.As old proverb says,money marry money.
 

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
This is why I just don't care if climate change is a thing or not; it's too difficult to tell what's true and what isn't at this point, what with all the propaganda and ulterior motives behind it all. Besides; cleaning up the environment and keeping it clean in general doesn't need any greater justification. And if it what you specifically want to do does? Then you're probably doing more harm than good in the first place.
Greenhouse gasses, especially CO2 absolutely need the climate change structure to demand government intervention. When most pollution that folks were concerned about were things like SO2, which was a major component of forming Acid Rain, or actual toxic compounds like CO and the like, what you're saying is absolutely true, and there were good and obvious reasons for pursuing their reduction that had nothing to do with the ephemeral specter of "climate change".

CO2 on the other hand the Earth's biosphere is well adapted to handling as, well, it's a core part of the Carbon cycle of the planet. I mean, it's biology 101, nearly all animals on earth inhale O and exhale CO2, that CO2 is then processed by plants and O2 is released by them, with the C stored in their biological structure. Long story short, CO2 is not by the classical definition of pollution an actual pollutant. It's not an OCP for nature to adapt to, and increase in CO2 levels tends to correlate with in an INCREASE in the spread of plant life.

However, if you want to limit people's quality of life or regulate how people live their day to day lives, going after CO2 is a PERFECT angle. Since combustion of carbon (thus reverting stored carbon to CO2) is a core method by which we utilize stored energy on Earth. Thus, if you can control emissions of CO2, you are, in effect, controlling how much energy people are allowed to use, and if you control how much energy people are allowed to use, you're effectively controlling how those people live.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
Greenhouse gasses, especially CO2 absolutely need the climate change structure to demand government intervention. When most pollution that folks were concerned about were things like SO2, which was a major component of forming Acid Rain, or actual toxic compounds like CO and the like, what you're saying is absolutely true, and there were good and obvious reasons for pursuing their reduction that had nothing to do with the ephemeral specter of "climate change".

CO2 on the other hand the Earth's biosphere is well adapted to handling as, well, it's a core part of the Carbon cycle of the planet. I mean, it's biology 101, nearly all animals on earth inhale O and exhale CO2, that CO2 is then processed by plants and O2 is released by them, with the C stored in their biological structure. Long story short, CO2 is not by the classical definition of pollution an actual pollutant. It's not an OCP for nature to adapt to, and increase in CO2 levels tends to correlate with in an INCREASE in the spread of plant life.

However, if you want to limit people's quality of life or regulate how people live their day to day lives, going after CO2 is a PERFECT angle. Since combustion of carbon (thus reverting stored carbon to CO2) is a core method by which we utilize stored energy on Earth. Thus, if you can control emissions of CO2, you are, in effect, controlling how much energy people are allowed to use, and if you control how much energy people are allowed to use, you're effectively controlling how those people live.
The real greenhouse issue is methane, not CO2; methane traps a shitload more heat than CO2. It's why there is so much anger about cow farts in the rad-greens.

The real danger they see is methane ices frozen on the ocean floors breaking loose and outgassing/rapidly dissolving. Ocean temp is the real thing to watch, not so much atmospheric heating.

And the thing is, they aren't actually wrong about the danger, just the methods they want to use to address it.

If the oceans warm too much, and we see those ices break loose enmasse, the warming in the oceans and atmosphere may hit a runaway feedback loop due to how much methane is dumped in it over a fairly short time period.

That ends up with Earth going through a Second Great Dying, and we get a Permian level reset of the planet's biology. Say goodbye to most everything that isn't an extreme thermophile for a few million years.

Its why we need off-planet colonies and genetic seed banks/back-ups pronto; we might hit a point where Mars is less hostile to human life and easier to live on than the surface of our planet.

The view of our climate, ecosystem, and biosphere as 'stable and friendly' is a symptom of how hilariously short a time humans have been recording things and living off the land, compared to Earth's actual age.
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member

Whiteness is a condition one first acquires and then one has—a malignant, parasitic-like condition to which “white” people have a particular susceptibility. The condition is foundational, generating characteristic ways of being in one’s body, in one’s mind, and in one’s world. Parasitic Whiteness renders its hosts’ appetites voracious, insatiable, and perverse. These deformed appetites particularly target nonwhite peoples. Once established, these appetites are nearly impossible to eliminate. Effective treatment consists of a combination of psychic and social-historical interventions. Such interventions can reasonably aim only to reshape Whiteness’s infiltrated appetites—to reduce their intensity, redistribute their aims, and occasionally turn those aims toward the work of reparation. When remembered and represented, the ravages wreaked by the chronic condition can function either as warning (“never again”) or as temptation (“great again”). Memorialization alone, therefore, is no guarantee against regression. There is not yet a permanent cure.
 

BlackDragon98

Freikorps Kommandant
Banned - Politics
The real greenhouse issue is methane, not CO2; methane traps a shitload more heat than CO2. It's why there is so much anger about cow farts in the rad-greens.

The real danger they see is methane ices frozen on the ocean floors breaking loose and outgassing/rapidly dissolving. Ocean temp is the real thing to watch, not so much atmospheric heating.

And the thing is, they aren't actually wrong about the danger, just the methods they want to use to address it.

If the oceans warm too much, and we see those ices break loose enmasse, the warming in the oceans and atmosphere may hit a runaway feedback loop due to how much methane is dumped in it over a fairly short time period.

That ends up with Earth going through a Second Great Dying, and we get a Permian level reset of the planet's biology. Say goodbye to most everything that isn't an extreme thermophile for a few million years.

Its why we need off-planet colonies and genetic seed banks/back-ups pronto; we might hit a point where Mars is less hostile to human life and easier to live on than the surface of our planet.

The view of our climate, ecosystem, and biosphere as 'stable and friendly' is a symptom of how hilariously short a time humans have been recording things and living off the land, compared to Earth's actual age.
There is a simple solution.

Make a couple of big volcanos go Boom in short order.

When Krakatoa erupted back in 1815, the world got darker and temperature got lower.
 
Last edited:

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
There is a simple solution.

Make a couple of big volcanos go Boom in short order.

When Krakatoa erupted back in 1815, the world got darker and temperature got lower.
You aren't the only one to have that thought.

However, it doesn't really help long term (might buy us a year or two), and it has significant short term issues as well.
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
Also, we don't have the technology to cause volcanic eruptions at will. There's a few theories on how it might be done but nothing that's ever actually succeeded.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Also, we don't have the technology to cause volcanic eruptions at will. There's a few theories on how it might be done but nothing that's ever actually succeeded.
Yes.I remember some old movie with H bomb tossed into vulcano,but i doubt that it would worked in real life.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
Also, we don't have the technology to cause volcanic eruptions at will. There's a few theories on how it might be done but nothing that's ever actually succeeded.
Oh, we have the tech to do it; all you really need is a high temp drill head and drill rig you don't care about losing.

Just poking a hole in an existing magma chamber would be enough to set most chambers off, due to the trapped gases.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top