Technology, Science and the Environment.

[String fellow]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Interesting. I'd like to see what hard evidence, if any,  Professor Cox has for buying into the Rare Earth Hypothesis as much as this.

 

It's certainly possible,  but i also certainly wouldn't take spacefaring life only on earth as a given.

I'm hoping that Brian Cox's 'Universe' programme doesn't try to outdo Carl (We are all made of star stuff) Sagan's 'Cosmos' and doesn't turn out to be more about Brian Cox than the universe itself. He seems to love being filmed explaining the most basic of astronomical principles in exotic locations and putting himself into tricky physical situations, all presumably at the expense of TV licence payers. He also seems to love the word 'billions' and uses it frequently like some sort of hyperbole to impress everyone with, when he's banging on about how vast and how old the universe is. We already know that! 

[fuchsntf]

37 minutes ago, String fellow said:

I'm hoping that Brian Cox's 'Universe' programme doesn't try to outdo Carl (We are all made of star stuff) Sagan's 'Cosmos' and doesn't turn out to be more about Brian Cox than the universe itself. He seems to love being filmed explaining the most basic of astronomical principles in exotic locations and putting himself into tricky physical situations, all presumably at the expense of TV licence payers. He also seems to love the word 'billions' and uses it frequently like some sort of hyperbole to impress everyone with, when he's banging on about how vast and how old the universe is. We already know that! 

Strange earthly phenomenon ...Again another individual One of our species, having a Non-Logical envious Huff over another, by echoing  the same sentiment

& character of the individual he is taking a Pop at....

 

you make a documentary & put your Expert Views forward....we might then be interested if they Stack up....

i wonder what the Nucleus  of a Plonker is....

Edited 19 October 2021 by fuchsntf

[fox_up_north]

1 hour ago, String fellow said:

I'm hoping that Brian Cox's 'Universe' programme doesn't try to outdo Carl (We are all made of star stuff) Sagan's 'Cosmos' and doesn't turn out to be more about Brian Cox than the universe itself. He seems to love being filmed explaining the most basic of astronomical principles in exotic locations and putting himself into tricky physical situations, all presumably at the expense of TV licence payers. He also seems to love the word 'billions' and uses it frequently like some sort of hyperbole to impress everyone with, when he's banging on about how vast and how old the universe is. We already know that! 

A mate of mine was present in a few of his uni lectures and I gather his TV personality transfers to the course. He DOES know his stuff and wouldn't be where he is without the knowledge but I gather he's simplified too much and he's getting physics students to suck eggs, at times. 

[The Bear]

You need to remember the vast majority of the public have no idea about that sort of stuff though, so dumbing it down a bit is necessary. 

[Bellend Sebastian]

I know Insulate Britain are getting on folks' tits, but this is mental

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/19/video-shows-range-rover-pushing-insulate-britain-activist-at-sit-in

 

 

 

 

[Carl the Llama]

39 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

I know Insulate Britain are getting on folks' tits, but this is mental

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/19/video-shows-range-rover-pushing-insulate-britain-activist-at-sit-in

 

 

 

 

Seen a lot of cheering for this kind of behaviour sadly enough

[The Bear]

Tbh it's exactly what I'd feel like doing. I just  wouldn't though. 

[Innovindil]

US climate policy seems to be going well eh. All because some cvnt gets a small fortune from coal. Amazing. 

[leicsmac]

15 hours ago, Dunge said:

I’ve thought for a while there could be something in the “Rare Earth” hypothesis, albeit without any hard evidence. It’s interesting to see a respected personality giving it his backing.**

 

The suggestion that civilisations don’t have a long shelf life is perhaps more worrying for us as a species. Personally, I think a big issue facing the human race in the future - assuming that everything goes well - is how it manages in centuries’ time. Humans have made so much progress in the last two hundred years, and indeed earlier, through exploration, hunger for knowledge, driving on to the next big thing. Right now we need sustainability*, both for this planet and for space exploration. After that, we’re looking at returning to the moon and visiting Mars. Beyond that, colonising Mars and creating a little system of human endeavour and population. But the fact is, without some new science (eg wormholes), that’s as far as the vast majority of humans on this planet can go. Transporting us to another star system, even a neighbouring one, is a practically impossible ask. It may be possible to get human life started in other star systems, but very unlikely that we can transport billions of us there to do it. Essentially, even with a fair wind taking us to that point, I think we’ll reach the limits of where most humans of Earth can reach.

 

At that point, we’d need to live lives bereft of progress, where we can no longer leave our mark on the universe except through breeding. The meaning that Brian Cox rightly talks about would get diminished. And I don’t know whether civilisation can cope with that, or whether that’s what inevitably eats itself in search of a new challenge.

 

 

*Granted, let’s get climate change sorted first or all of this becomes a null issue anyway.

**If he starts backing the Gaia hypothesis I’m going to do a backflip in excitement. 

It is possible, given enough time.

 

But yes, practically we need a massive leap in technology in terms of either mastering FTL travel, or extending the human lifespan, or both. Who knows if those are possible? I personally think they might be,

 

12 hours ago, String fellow said:

I'm hoping that Brian Cox's 'Universe' programme doesn't try to outdo Carl (We are all made of star stuff) Sagan's 'Cosmos' and doesn't turn out to be more about Brian Cox than the universe itself. He seems to love being filmed explaining the most basic of astronomical principles in exotic locations and putting himself into tricky physical situations, all presumably at the expense of TV licence payers. He also seems to love the word 'billions' and uses it frequently like some sort of hyperbole to impress everyone with, when he's banging on about how vast and how old the universe is. We already know that! 

As per above, science communication needs to be directed in a way that engages as many people as possible, so it does need to be spun to the layman.

 

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

US climate policy seems to be going well eh. All because some cvnt gets a small fortune from coal. Amazing. 

Manchin really isn't winning friends or influencing people here, it's true. Surely he's got to know appealing to the coal lobby in WV isn't going to end well for him in the long run?

[Jon the Hat]

6 hours ago, The Bear said:

Tbh it's exactly what I'd feel like doing. I just  wouldn't though. 

That move from feeling like you'd like to barge them out of the way to actually doing it is a pretty big leap imo.  It would have to be more important that dropping the kids to school that is for sure.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58971131

 

Deeply dispiriting.

[Pliskin]

52 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58971131

 

Deeply dispiriting.

It is. And it’s why I’m constantly saying we just don’t learn….. unless we have a financial crash where money becomes completely useless akin to Germany pre WWII, climate change as a whole simply won’t be tackled.

 

Russia allegedly want the ice caps to completely melt as they want to exploit the oil reserves there……

 

It is all pure evil, it’s planetary genocide, and the most (and I apologise for the turn of phrase but such a situation warrants it) retarded aspect of it all is we can reverse it, yet do we pay any attention…. No, why because of money, money that by 2060 could be useless as we’re all clawing at our throats unable to breath.

 

 

By 2050 more than half of the earths natural Wild could be gone. 2050…… most of us on this forum will still be alive then. 
 

Something drastic needs to happen, but whilst we’re allowing oil rich consortiums to buy football clubs, nothing will.

[leicsmac]

44 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

It is. And it’s why I’m constantly saying we just don’t learn….. unless we have a financial crash where money becomes completely useless akin to Germany pre WWII, climate change as a whole simply won’t be tackled.

 

Russia allegedly want the ice caps to completely melt as they want to exploit the oil reserves there……

 

It is all pure evil, it’s planetary genocide, and the most (and I apologise for the turn of phrase but such a situation warrants it) retarded aspect of it all is we can reverse it, yet do we pay any attention…. No, why because of money, money that by 2060 could be useless as we’re all clawing at our throats unable to breath.

 

 

By 2050 more than half of the earths natural Wild could be gone. 2050…… most of us on this forum will still be alive then. 
 

Something drastic needs to happen, but whilst we’re allowing oil rich consortiums to buy football clubs, nothing will.

We do need a fundamental change in the way society operates on a variety of levels. If we continue as we are, the Earth will change things in a way that will be both uncontrollable and probably extremely undesirable. Those are facts. And the saddest thing about it is, as you say, it is all so needless.

 

But I'm going to hang onto the hope that i have, that there is still time to effect these changes and we can turn this around. Because without that, there's just the void to look forward to, and I honestly don't want to believe the legacy of humanity will only be that. Not until the day it really happens.

 

 

[Pliskin]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

We do need a fundamental change in the way society operates on a variety of levels. If we continue as we are, the Earth will change things in a way that will be both uncontrollable and probably extremely undesirable. Those are facts. And the saddest thing about it is, as you say, it is all so needless.

 

But I'm going to hang onto the hope that i have, that there is still time to effect these changes and we can turn this around. Because without that, there's just the void to look forward to, and I honestly don't want to believe the legacy of humanity will only be that. Not until the day it really happens.

 

 

I agree…..

 

I mean we don’t know how much of these news releases (particularly with the BBC) are done to put pressure on governments to take action. 
 

It’s okay saying you’re going to stop sales of petrol and diesel cars by 2030, and stop instillation of gas boilers by 2050, but that’s all well and good but what about replace? There are people who can’t afford electric cars, or can’t afford to replace their boiler with a heat pump? £5k grants aren’t enough……. Unfortunately, if they’re serious they’re going to have to do it for free or come up with a massive incentive to make people make the switches where it won’t financially cripple them. 
 

I also worry about this countries stance with the major players in the fossil fuel industry it’s quite clear that we’re terrified of nations like Saudi Arabia et al, because why else would you, days before COP26 allow a consortium of oil kings invest into a product of this country? It seems insane.

 

 

I think drastic action will be taken, but you would have thought bush fires and global pandemics would indicate we’re getting things a bit wrong………

 

Still like you have, we have a tendency to act, but I just hope it’s before something really devastating happens, because we’re also a little guilty of that too……..

Edited 20 October 2021 by Pliskin

[WigstonWanderer]

18 hours ago, fox_up_north said:

A mate of mine was present in a few of his uni lectures and I gather his TV personality transfers to the course. He DOES know his stuff and wouldn't be where he is without the knowledge but I gather he's simplified too much and he's getting physics students to suck eggs, at times. 

For anyone that wants to dig down a bit further than the happy clappy stuff on TV I can recommend Leonard Susskind’s Stanford University lecture series on all sorts of topics in Physics including Special & General Relativity, Cosmology, Particle Physics, and Quantum Mechanics. He gives at least the flavour of some of the mathematics behind these topics.

Edited 20 October 2021 by WigstonWanderer

[String fellow]

If others wish to buy into the narrative that Brian Cox's brain is in some way bigger than that of mere mortals such as myself, that's fine. There's no denying that he's easy on the eye, is a great communicator, is good at presenting over-budget tv programmes. However, that reality is that he's a not paticularly notable particle physicist, not an astrophysicist, whose maths A -level grade was unspectacular, meaning that he was way short of Oxbridge entry requirements. Even my feeble brain managed to achieve a better grade than he did. His books on astronomy are all co-authored, suggesting that someone else did all the hard word. His suggestion that Brexit voters would have voted differently had they been better informed was immensely patronising. And his suggestion that Chopin was a 'lightweight' composer was a trifle bizarre, coming from a former keyboard player of two not particularly successful bands back in the 90s. To cap it all, he supports Oldham Athletic! I rest my case. 

[leicsmac]

30 minutes ago, String fellow said:

If others wish to buy into the narrative that Brian Cox's brain is in some way bigger than that of mere mortals such as myself, that's fine. There's no denying that he's easy on the eye, is a great communicator, is good at presenting over-budget tv programmes. However, that reality is that he's a not paticularly notable particle physicist, not an astrophysicist, whose maths A -level grade was unspectacular, meaning that he was way short of Oxbridge entry requirements. Even my feeble brain managed to achieve a better grade than he did. His books on astronomy are all co-authored, suggesting that someone else did all the hard word. His suggestion that Brexit voters would have voted differently had they been better informed was immensely patronising. And his suggestion that Chopin was a 'lightweight' composer was a trifle bizarre, coming from a former keyboard player of two not particularly successful bands back in the 90s. To cap it all, he supports Oldham Athletic! I rest my case. 

This is the part that has importance above all others, to be honest.

 

Science suffers in the field of policy because its importance is not communicated well enough and then translated to policy, and that lack may well end up with consequences that are truly dire. There isn't much point to knowledge if it isn't applied well to make the world a better place.

 

In light of that, we need more talented communicators able to combine a good standard of scientific knowledge with the ability to communicate it in a way that then gets turned into action. 

 

No one has said that Professor Cox is in the front line of the truly great scientists, but that's not where we need the help right now.

 

NB. Brexit was and is terrible for the field of scientific collaboration and development and if anyone thinks differently I would be most interested in knowing why.

[The Bear]

I don't mind Brian Cox, but given the choice I'll always listen to Neil DeGrasse Tyson. His StarTalk  podcasts are great. 

[leicsmac]

And on YouTube, Kurzgesagt do fantastic science videos.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58982445

 

...are these players ignorant or simply malicious in their lack of care towards the future?

 

I'm not sure which one is worse.

[nnfox]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58982445

 

...are these players ignorant or simply malicious in their lack of care towards the future?

 

I'm not sure which one is worse.

I can see how it comes across that way, but it highlights what a complex issue it is.  When seeking global agreements and changes to how people live their lives, some countries will fare better, some worse.  Shutting all coal mines tomorrow would lead to mass unemployment and power cuts all over the world and all the problems associated with those two monsters.  So we have to wait and set a date into the future.  Some countries might be OK with the timescales, others might protest and want an extra decade or two due to the reliance they have on fossil fuels, both in terms of economy and infrastructure.  These issues are why events like COP26 are so important.  They provide an opportunity to meet, reach compromise and make progress.  It always has been and always will be an up hill struggle.  History tells us that massive international agreements are tricky to reach and any agreements made are often fraught with problems at local levels that leads to resistance, and sometimes anger, and sometimes the players refuse to play and take the ball home with them and the whole thing starts to unravel.  Any climate agreement reached in the wake of COP26 will sadly be the same unless compromise and concessions are made.  An end goal that everybody agrees to has to be the focus.  Once that's agreed, it's a matter of negotiation on how to get there.  Some countries will have to do more than others and it isn't as simple as the rich taking a hit and helping the poor.  There will have to be accepted differences between the rich nations too, because rich nations are all unique and are all extremely complex machines.  There is no "one size fits all" solution to this.

 

Here's an article from the FT in May highlighting the Australian coal issue https://www.ft.com/content/262db450-e619-4397-a46d-cce6c8ec83a9 and there are some interesting comments made by some readers at the bottom.

 

There is a certain irony to this though, Australia is evidently at the sharp end of climate change, their weather extremes appear to be getting worse year by year.  They, more than most, should be accelerating towards a greener future.

 

 

 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, nnfox said:

I can see how it comes across that way, but it highlights what a complex issue it is.  When seeking global agreements and changes to how people live their lives, some countries will fare better, some worse.  Shutting all coal mines tomorrow would lead to mass unemployment and power cuts all over the world and all the problems associated with those two monsters.  So we have to wait and set a date into the future.  Some countries might be OK with the timescales, others might protest and want an extra decade or two due to the reliance they have on fossil fuels, both in terms of economy and infrastructure.  These issues are why events like COP26 are so important.  They provide an opportunity to meet, reach compromise and make progress.  It always has been and always will be an up hill struggle.  History tells us that massive international agreements are tricky to reach and any agreements made are often fraught with problems at local levels that leads to resistance, and sometimes anger, and sometimes the players refuse to play and take the ball home with them and the whole thing starts to unravel.  Any climate agreement reached in the wake of COP26 will sadly be the same unless compromise and concessions are made.  An end goal that everybody agrees to has to be the focus.  Once that's agreed, it's a matter of negotiation on how to get there.  Some countries will have to do more than others and it isn't as simple as the rich taking a hit and helping the poor.  There will have to be accepted differences between the rich nations too, because rich nations are all unique and are all extremely complex machines.  There is no "one size fits all" solution to this.

 

Here's an article from the FT in May highlighting the Australian coal issue https://www.ft.com/content/262db450-e619-4397-a46d-cce6c8ec83a9 and there are some interesting comments made by some readers at the bottom.

 

There is a certain irony to this though, Australia is evidently at the sharp end of climate change, their weather extremes appear to be getting worse year by year.  They, more than most, should be accelerating towards a greener future.

 

 

 

That's an accurate summation of the complexity of international relations on this matter.

 

However,  those relations change nothing regarding the essential truth of the matter: either human civilisation works together to deal with this problem,  or the Earth delivers a fate to it that is at best hundreds of millions of people hungry, thirsty and displaced,  and at worst those nations arguing among themselves now collapsing into a series of warring city states Mad Max style.

 

Believe me,  I understand the complexity.  I just have no time for it on this particular issue.  Not when the consequences are both so widespread and so dire.

[nnfox]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

That's an accurate summation of the complexity of international relations on this matter.

 

However,  those relations change nothing regarding the essential truth of the matter: either human civilisation works together to deal with this problem,  or the Earth delivers a fate to it that is at best hundreds of millions of people hungry, thirsty and displaced,  and at worst those nations arguing among themselves now collapsing into a series of warring city states Mad Max style.

 

Believe me,  I understand the complexity.  I just have no time for it on this particular issue.  Not when the consequences are both so widespread and so dire.

You are totally right.  To paraphrase an old motivational quote...

 

The global community must suffer one of two pains, the pain of discipline, or the pain of regret.

 

Now is the time we must choose our path.  High cost now, or much, much higher cost later.

 

[leicsmac]

38 minutes ago, nnfox said:

You are totally right.  To paraphrase an old motivational quote...

 

The global community must suffer one of two pains, the pain of discipline, or the pain of regret.

 

Now is the time we must choose our path.  High cost now, or much, much higher cost later.

 

Precisely. And it grieves me that those with power do not grasp this either out of ignorance or malice.

[WigstonWanderer]

12 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58982445

 

...are these players ignorant or simply malicious in their lack of care towards the future?

 

I'm not sure which one is worse.

There has been a recent “change of heart” regarding attitudes of the current Australian government and indeed the Murdoch press here, to the issue of climate change. They now claim to be fully onboard with the need to take action.

 

Unfortunately I believe that they have only climbed aboard in order to try to steer the process away from taking any meaningful action. I expect them to be pressing for unproven future CCS technologies that give them licence to dig more coal now with a “promise” to offset later. This is why they are currently digging their heels in regarding a more meaningful 2030 target (currently set at 28%), whilst playing lip service to net zero by 2050 (if their junior partners in government, the Nationals will allow them).

 

I fully expect them to try to sabotage any meaningful progress at COP26.

Edited 21 October 2021 by WigstonWanderer