Carl Sagan's Baloney Detector and Anti Gun Arguments

[endus]

"My son-in-law, an engineer w/a Phd. is working on a process to recycle the lithium/cad battery's that will power the next generation of automobiles. The sky is not falling."
*********
Gratz is my son-in-law.
http://www.telegram.com/news/201702...arts-business-recycling-lithium-ion-batteries

That's pretty badass.

I'm a gearhead so it's going to be a tough transition to electric cars, but I think there's a lot of potential there. Those Teslas are supposed to be CRAZY fast. The technology isn't there yet, but it will be cool once it starts making it into trucks for offroading.

They keep hinting at some really excellent new battery technologies in the works as well.

 

[endus]

I have no hope that this will be read for the reasons I post it, and not reacted to as threatening to personal dogma, but I do think this is a good article.

https://www.propublica.org/article/climate-change-uncertainties-bret-stephens-column

It leans, and makes it explicitly clear that it leans, in a certain direction but if one can get past that in the interest of learning something it makes interesting points. These articles inevitably get read by people with a personal agenda as unequivocally supportive of a particular viewpoint, despite very clear admonishments which are friendly to their point of view.

In particular I think the quote, "uncertainty, informed and bounded by science, is actionable knowledge" sums up the problem with a lot of the anti-arguments. The author also notes that legislation's impact on industry is also something fraught with uncertainty that warrants consideration as well. It also mentions the fact that the federal flood insurance program was encouraging amazingly stupid decisions, which I think is a very much conservative principle.

What I personally take from the article is that arm waving hysteria is bad no matter who is doing it. Understanding where we DO have facts and evidence is as important as understanding where we DON'T have facts and evidence and I think both sides really need to get with that program in order to come up with a sensible approach to move forward with. I have no hope whatsoever that that will happen because, as humans, we seem to be bent on doing everything the worst way we possibly can...but it's worth considering from a personal knowledge standpoint.

What actually caught my attention here, though, is the idea of making decisions under deep uncertainty. It's funny because I am reading a sci-fi book and trying to get a quantum computer to be able to make decisions when there is no objectively provable best course of action was a theme.

I think that topic plays into the original subject of the thread, and not just in terms of this climate change boondoggle we got into, but in general. How do we deal with something which science, or even politicians or the public, identify as a problem when there is significant uncertainty which is not a readily solvable problem? I shall be reading more.

http://www.deepuncertainty.org/2016/09/30/embracing-uncertainty-for-better-decision-making/

 

[rwl1955]

I have no hope that this will be read for the reasons I post it, and not reacted to as threatening to personal dogma, but I do think this is a good article.

https://www.propublica.org/article/climate-change-uncertainties-bret-stephens-column

It leans, and makes it explicitly clear that it leans, in a certain direction but if one can get past that in the interest of learning something it makes interesting points. These articles inevitably get read by people with a personal agenda as unequivocally supportive of a particular viewpoint, despite very clear admonishments which are friendly to their point of view.

In particular I think the quote, "uncertainty, informed and bounded by science, is actionable knowledge" sums up the problem with a lot of the anti-arguments. The author also notes that legislation's impact on industry is also something fraught with uncertainty that warrants consideration as well. It also mentions the fact that the federal flood insurance program was encouraging amazingly stupid decisions, which I think is a very much conservative principle.

What I personally take from the article is that arm waving hysteria is bad no matter who is doing it. Understanding where we DO have facts and evidence is as important as understanding where we DON'T have facts and evidence and I think both sides really need to get with that program in order to come up with a sensible approach to move forward with. I have no hope whatsoever that that will happen because, as humans, we seem to be bent on doing everything the worst way we possibly can...but it's worth considering from a personal knowledge standpoint.

What actually caught my attention here, though, is the idea of making decisions under deep uncertainty. It's funny because I am reading a sci-fi book and trying to get a quantum computer to be able to make decisions when there is no objectively provable best course of action was a theme.

I think that topic plays into the original subject of the thread, and not just in terms of this climate change boondoggle we got into, but in general. How do we deal with something which science, or even politicians or the public, identify as a problem when there is significant uncertainty which is not a readily solvable problem? I shall be reading more.

http://www.deepuncertainty.org/2016/09/30/embracing-uncertainty-for-better-decision-making/

******
The problem is the left has embraced man made climate change as dogma and anyone who disagrees is either an imbecile or bought and paid for by the evil oil companies. They are backed by fascists like Soros, Steyer and the unforgiving environmentalists who value trees over human beings. They have no consideration for the costs to industry or the effect on humans jobs or living standards. The issue is just another crusade from the far left which includes racism, white supremacy, white privilege, gay rights, tranny bathrooms, gun control, etc. This is why they lost the election and they can't get over it. They have declared war on anyone who doesn't drink their poisoned agenda so bring it on. Since they don't believe they have to obey laws that they don't agree with we have a major confrontation brewing.