Technology, Science and the Environment.

[samlcfc]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

It's a game changer. In terms of efficiency it's an order of magnitude better than anything we have available now.

 

It's also a technical nightmare to get right (but getting it wrong just results in a stopped reaction rather than catastrophe), which is why it's taking so long.

 

It was quite fun to read about how the extreme temperatures being worked with weren't really problematic to safety, due to the fuel source being used up immediately if the reaction failed. Pretty insane to consider something so hot, only effects and area immediately around the reaction. 

 

I bet it'd be awesome to sit down and chat with someone who could communicate it all in a fairly simple way. I guess that what podcasts are for!

 

 

[leicsmac]

43 minutes ago, samlcfc said:

 

It was quite fun to read about how the extreme temperatures being worked with weren't really problematic to safety, due to the fuel source being used up immediately if the reaction failed. Pretty insane to consider something so hot, only effects and area immediately around the reaction. 

 

I bet it'd be awesome to sit down and chat with someone who could communicate it all in a fairly simple way. I guess that what podcasts are for!

 

 

Well, hopefully soon that will be my sole stock-in trade.

[WigstonWanderer]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/12/breakthrough-in-nuclear-fusion-could-mean-near-limitless-energy
 

A huge technical achievement  but still a very long way to go. The technical description of the achievement as “ignition” is a little misleading. It doesn’t mean that the heat generated in some way causes the process to be self sustaining (as in a normal chemical fire).

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, WigstonWanderer said:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/12/breakthrough-in-nuclear-fusion-could-mean-near-limitless-energy
 

A huge technical achievement  but still a very long way to go. The technical description of the achievement as “ignition” is a little misleading. It doesn’t mean that the heat generated in some way causes the process to be self sustaining (as in a normal chemical fire).

Yep, still a long way to go.

 

But the prize is absolutely worth the long road.

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Yep, still a long way to go.

 

But the prize is absolutely worth the long road.

Let's just hope the prize isn't so far down the road that it comes too late.

 

And fortunately there's no chance at all that  we'll see a substantial increase in fossil fuel use as the oil/gas/coal producers desperately cash in while they can, thus tipping the world into catastrophically accelerating irreversible climate change just before we work out a fantastic way to to avoid it.

 

Sorry, I seem to have got out of the cynically pessimistic side of the bed this morning.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Manley Farrington-Brown said:

Let's just hope the prize isn't so far down the road that it comes too late.

 

And fortunately there's no chance at all that  we'll see a substantial increase in fossil fuel use as the oil/gas/coal producers desperately cash in while they can, thus tipping the world into catastrophically accelerating irreversible climate change just before we work out a fantastic way to to avoid it.

 

Sorry, I seem to have got out of the cynically pessimistic side of the bed this morning.

That's an entirely possible scenario.

 

But all we can do is what we can to try to ensure it doesn't come to that.

[Free Falling Foxes]

3 hours ago, Manley Farrington-Brown said:

Let's just hope the prize isn't so far down the road that it comes too late.

 

And fortunately there's no chance at all that  we'll see a substantial increase in fossil fuel use as the oil/gas/coal producers desperately cash in while they can, thus tipping the world into catastrophically accelerating irreversible climate change just before we work out a fantastic way to to avoid it.

 

Sorry, I seem to have got out of the cynically pessimistic side of the bed this morning.

Haven't the oil industry scuppered other possible areas of greener energy generation and propulsion in the past?

I recall reading that some earlier technology research had been 'bought' by them and shelved.

Apologies if I'm peddling something that is nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

[leicsmac]

18 minutes ago, Free Falling Foxes said:

Haven't the oil industry scuppered other possible areas of greener energy generation and propulsion in the past?

I recall reading that some earlier technology research had been 'bought' by them and shelved.

Apologies if I'm peddling something that is nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

It's a possibility, though unproven at this time.

 

The good news is that generally the market is tipping in favour of cleaner sources of energy anyway, so even if they had done such a thing, it would now or soon be in their interest to release such technology to the market, and as we all know financial self interest means far more than altruism to such companies.

[WigstonWanderer]

3 hours ago, Manley Farrington-Brown said:

Let's just hope the prize isn't so far down the road that it comes too late.

 

And fortunately there's no chance at all that  we'll see a substantial increase in fossil fuel use as the oil/gas/coal producers desperately cash in while they can, thus tipping the world into catastrophically accelerating irreversible climate change just before we work out a fantastic way to to avoid it.

 

Sorry, I seem to have got out of the cynically pessimistic side of the bed this morning.

Ultimately the high coal, gas and oil prices should hasten the transition to renewables - after the current wartime feeding frenzy from the fossil fuel companies of course.

[ithuriel]

Sounds like a great museum, park, thingy? 

If the science to some is like this, well, imagine what the environment is like.

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Ultimately the high coal, gas and oil prices should hasten the transition to renewables - after the current wartime feeding frenzy from the fossil fuel companies of course.

Here's hoping that it's in time. The Earth and the consequences it supplies aren't going to sit around waiting for us to get our shit together.

 

6 minutes ago, ithuriel said:

Sounds like a great museum, park, thingy? 

If the science to some is like this, well, imagine what the environment is like.

...and then you realise that these people have various ways to impose this "scientific" worldview on the lives and futures of other people in many places that they've never met and never will.

 

And that's rather depressing.

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

3 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Ultimately the high coal, gas and oil prices should hasten the transition to renewables - after the current wartime feeding frenzy from the fossil fuel companies of course.

Let's hope the fossil fuel feeding frenzy doesn't render the transition to renewables somewhat moot in the meantime...

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

1 hour ago, ithuriel said:

Sounds like a great museum, park, thingy? 

If the science to some is like this, well, imagine what the environment is like.

If it wasn't for the fact that there will be actual real people who believe it, that stuff would be hilarious.

As it is, it tends more towards the depressing, frightening and deeply, deeply weird.

If we can't get past the point where there are still people who believe such drivel, maybe it's all for the best that we're probably going to wipe ourselves off the face of the earth before long.

 

[grobyfox1990]

10 minutes ago, Manley Farrington-Brown said:

If it wasn't for the fact that there will be actual real people who believe it, that stuff would be hilarious.

As it is, it tends more towards the depressing, frightening and deeply, deeply weird.

If we can't get past the point where there are still people who believe such drivel, maybe it's all for the best that we're probably going to wipe ourselves off the face of the earth before long.

 

Drivel to you and me though isn't it. Everyone's drivel is very different. The way these maniacs spread their gospel should be looked at and studied, not thrown out.

I work in sustainability commercially, and have no knowledge and quite frankly interest in the science. We often have to draft in scientists to explain concepts to externals. I used to be extremely embarrassed to present these people in front of third parties, which then turned to humour at how bad they were, and now back to sheer frustration. I understand they know their game inside out, but the absolute lack of people, presentation, communication, empathetic and being a normal human being skills possessed are shocking.

THIS SUBJECT IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO ME AND I'M GOING TO REPEAT IT IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY UNTIL ITS REALLY IMPORTANT TO YOU is about all we get from scientists which helps no one do nothing. These viral mad men can at least tailor their message to get through to people, which obviously climate scientists have no idea how to do.

Edited 13 December 2022 by grobyfox1990
pressed send too quick

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Drivel to you and me though isn't it. Everyone's drivel is very different. The way these maniacs spread their gospel should be looked at and studied, not thrown out.

I work in sustainability commercially, and have no knowledge and quite frankly interest in the science. We often have to draft in scientists to explain concepts to externals. I used to be extremely embarrassed to present these people in front of third parties, which then turned to humour at how bad they were, and now back to sheer frustration. I understand they know their game inside out, but the absolute lack of people, presentation, communication, empathetic and being a normal human being skills possessed are shocking.

THIS SUBJECT IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO ME AND I'M GOING TO REPEAT IT IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY UNTIL ITS REALLY IMPORTANT TO YOU is about all we get from scientists which helps no one do nothing. These viral mad men can at least tailor their message to get through to people, which obviously climate scientists have no idea how to do.

With respect, if the world goes to hell in a handbasket it won't be the scientists that will be to blame, though poor science communication is a thing and does require improvement.

[grobyfox1990]

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

With respect, if the world goes to hell in a handbasket it won't be the scientists that will be to blame, though poor science communication is a thing and does require improvement.

Not saying it will be. But those 'in the know' also have a responsibility to upskill themselves if they are aware of a developing situation, and saying the same thing over and over again, in a mildly derogatory way, is surprisingly (!) not getting through to people.

Reference Covid, Qatar, political threads on this forum. Posters not reading what anyone is saying, just repeating themselves continuously. 

Mainly i'm annoyed at having just sat through another meeting with one of these drips who cannot act like an empathetic human being and awaiting the inevitable email later on from the client...

[marbles]

13 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

With respect, if the world goes to hell in a handbasket it won't be the scientists that will be to blame, though poor science communication is a thing and does require improvement.

They were my be to blame, but if they can’t explain it so “normal” people can understand, they are not doing everything within their power to help avoid it.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Not saying it will be. But those 'in the know' also have a responsibility to upskill themselves if they are aware of a developing situation, and saying the same thing over and over again, in a mildly derogatory way, is surprisingly (!) not getting through to people.

Reference Covid, Qatar, political threads on this forum. Posters not reading what anyone is saying, just repeating themselves continuously. 

Mainly i'm annoyed at having just sat through another meeting with one of these drips who cannot act like an empathetic human being and awaiting the inevitable email later on from the client...

What you said in the previous post - and in this one - infers otherwise.

 

Yes, effective science communication is important and some inspirational examples of it are more called for, but at some point a communicator is relying on the people they're communicating with to actually want to be educated and/or communicated with. And that is on the receiver, not the sender. (And since when was an unambiguous statement of scientific facts that difficult to comprehend beyond deliberate denial of it because it might inconvenience one's lfe, anyway?)

 

I strongly resent the idea that those already doing a very great deal to avert a global catastrophe are being told to do more here while those who they're talking to who sometimes either don't know or don't care about the void ahead seemingly have no accountability of their own.

 

2 minutes ago, marbles said:

They were my be to blame, but if they can’t explain it so “normal” people can understand, they are not doing everything within their power to help avoid it.

As per above, certainly science communication needs to be better as a discipline in this respect, and speaking personally I want to do my part there.

 

But, again as per above, even with the very best communication skills in the world, easy fantasies (like the ones in that YouTube video) often win out over harder realities. Which is a problem.

[grobyfox1990]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

What you said in the previous post - and in this one - infers otherwise.

 

Yes, effective science communication is important and some inspirational examples of it are more called for, but at some point a communicator is relying on the people they're communicating with to actually want to be educated and/or communicated with. And that is on the receiver, not the sender. (And since when was an unambiguous statement of scientific facts that difficult to comprehend beyond deliberate denial of it because it might inconvenience one's lfe, anyway?)

 

I strongly resent the idea that those already doing a very great deal to avert a global catastrophe are being told to do more here while those who they're talking to who sometimes either don't know or don't care about the void ahead seemingly have no accountability of their own.

 

As per above, certainly science communication needs to be better as a discipline in this respect, and speaking personally I want to do my part there.

 

But, again as per above, even with the very best communication skills in the world, easy fantasies (like the ones in that YouTube video) often win out over harder realities. Which is a problem.

Inference on the table in that case, scientists won't be solely to blame, but have to take some responsibility outside of their echo chambers and realise that pressing copy/paste on the message for the last 40 years hasn't worked for them

 

And the second part of your post touches on exactly what i'm saying, the lack of responsibility taken is befuddling, i don't get how that attitude becomes normalised. It is this hypothetical scientists job to MAKE!! people want to be educated. If the world is full of people who want to be educated, we have no need for connectors/communicators/call them what you like, the state will do it for them. Communicating to a bunch of people who want to be educated to sounds like a well easy job, sign me right up to that.

 

Nothing personal btw, i understand you are not one of these scientists i am having a go at but a poster on a football forum just like me!

[marbles]

16 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

 

But, again as per above, even with the very best communication skills in the world, easy fantasies (like the ones in that YouTube video) often win out over harder realities. Which is a problem.

Its all about the presentation.

What is more entertaining to watch/listen to?

What sounds more believable? Something explained using the same words you use, or something using words you've never heard before

 

Its very easy to say "They are just making things up", but that's what happens when people don't understand something - been that way since the beginning of time.

The easier something is to understand, the more accepting the general public is. 

   

[grobyfox1990]

7 minutes ago, marbles said:

Its all about the presentation.

What is more entertaining to watch/listen to?

What sounds more believable? Something explained using the same words you use, or something using words you've never heard before

 

Its very easy to say "They are just making things up", but that's what happens when people don't understand something - been that way since the beginning of time.

The easier something is to understand, the more accepting the general public is. 

   

Entertaining yes but more so tailoring to peoples needs. If you're in a meeting with corporates understand that they will be looking at what you're saying with a financial lens, so talk to them with that lens on. If you do not believe said issue should be looked at with that lens on, you aren't the right person for the job and continually repeating 'BUT THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE THE WORLD IS FACING' is not going to convince them.

Anyway i realise i'm getting a bit too confrontational to random football forum posters like Leicsmac who have literally nothing to do with my frustrations other than a keen interest in climate change.

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Inference on the table in that case, scientists won't be solely to blame, but have to take some responsibility outside of their echo chambers and realise that pressing copy/paste on the message for the last 40 years hasn't worked for them

 

And the second part of your post touches on exactly what i'm saying, the lack of responsibility taken is befuddling, i don't get how that attitude becomes normalised. It is this hypothetical scientists job to MAKE!! people want to be educated. If the world is full of people who want to be educated, we have no need for connectors/communicators/call them what you like, the state will do it for them. Communicating to a bunch of people who want to be educated to sounds like a well easy job, sign me right up to that.

 

Nothing personal btw, i understand you are not one of these scientists i am having a go at but a poster on a football forum just like me!

I am both, which is why I'm coming at this from a more personal angle.

 

This all just seems like heaping more responsibility on the shoulders of those already trying to guarantee a future while handing out none to those completely apathetic to it.

 

Believe me, in an ideal world there would be buttons to push for everyone, we would know what they were and we'd be able to tailor the message to everyone's motivations and thus inspire people in the exact way you describe. It would make what I try to do a hell of a lot easier, too. But this isn't an ideal world, and there is only so much that can be done to communicate and inspire before such communicators, like any of human, simply run out of resources and spoons.

 

It is deeply frustrating to put in as much effort as possible, see other folks putting in next to none to meet halfway, and then be blamed for it. And believe me, there are times when it is very, very tempting for that frustration to become outright resentment and a desire rather than to save the future, instead to make sure whoever is left afterwards is damned aware of who killed the world. But that's highly counterproductive too.

 

8 minutes ago, marbles said:

Its all about the presentation.

What is more entertaining to watch/listen to?

What sounds more believable? Something explained using the same words you use, or something using words you've never heard before

 

Its very easy to say "They are just making things up", but that's what happens when people don't understand something - been that way since the beginning of time.

The easier something is to understand, the more accepting the general public is. 

   

Yeah, this is SciComm 101. Einstein said that if your scientific idea can't be understood by a six-year old, then you don't really understand it yourself. And most of the time, directly relating to the audience is the best way to get them learning.

 

However, I would submit that this take overlooks the very deliberate ignorance and denial displayed by many because they fear the changes action based on that knowledge will bring. And that is the real problem here.

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

32 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

What you said in the previous post - and in this one - infers otherwise.

Implies.

Sorry, but one of my (many - oh, so many) little bugbears.

Triggers the pedant in me.

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Manley Farrington-Brown said:

Implies.

Sorry, but one of my (many - oh, so many) little bugbears.

Triggers the pedant in me.

Both are suitable for this situation, but it's late over here so forgive me for not elaborating on why.

[marbles]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

 

However, I would submit that this take overlooks the very deliberate ignorance and denial displayed by many because they fear the changes action based on that knowledge will bring. And that is the real problem here.

There will always be those who refuse to believe, no matter how convincing the evidence or how easy it is to understand - that's not the real problem. 

The real problem is racking your brain trying to figure out how to convince them - you are never going to.  Give it up and stop worrying about them.  They are the minority.

Worry about the ones you can reach.  There's a lot more of them, than the hard headed trolls.