/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10681874
big oil meme

no one actually gives a fuck except for schizo zoomers

>>10681874
The problem has already been solved by carbon taxes, nuclear, and renewable infrastructure. The issue is not finding a solution, it's implementing it. And as long as retards like you have a say, it won't be implemented.

>>10681878
Reminder
>All scientists supposedly agree
>They have 40 billion dollars just sitting around
>Yet they don’t act or even care

Something is not adding up. I know that if I thought the world was ending and had 40 billion dollars I’d dedicate myself entirely to solving the problem.

>>10681882
>carbon taxes
Oh! So they have 40 billion dollars but they’d rather use my money instead. And if I don’t give it to them they won’t do anything. I get it! They are pieces of shit!

>>10681874
Jesus, are you 12 years old?

1) Universities are not in charge of the world
2) You can't "solve the problem immediately"
3) You can't solve the problem without the compliance of society as a whole

>>10681883
who's money do you think that is. big oil.

industry and governments have greek orgies every tuesday.

big oil owns those scientists. You think those faggots can pay for it themselves?

these are the guys that get armies to aid their economic pursuits. Industry is what causes research in the first place.

>>10681906
You can solve the problem. All you need to do is develop clean energy until it is more economic than fossil fuels. With 40 billions and (supposedly) 100% of scientists and engineers on your side, this should be a cakewalk.

>>10681884
The point of a carbon tax is not to raise money, it's to disincentivize carbon emissions. Now back to >>>/pol/ with your patently fallacious arguments.

>>10681913
It is their endowment retard. The university itself owns it.

>>10681874

You're such a fucking retard lmao

>>10681919
So you want to reduce carbon emmissions without a plan to replace the energy output? Nice, go live with the amish fag. Or if your plan is to incentivize techniques to reduce the polution while keeping the same energy output then take the 40b and fund researchers to find it and then sell it to the oil companies. It is that easy.

>>10681940
Nice argument. It sure shows that you have all scientists on your side when you show this high level of intellectual discourse.

>>10681874
>the world is truly ending in 12 years

You seem to have a misunderstanding.
The world isn't going to end. I don't think any credible climate scientist EVER once even hinted to that. I don't know how you got this idea, but your correct to call bullshit on it. Unfortunately that's the only thing you got correct.

The problem of fighting global warming is like trying to fight entropy itself. It's much much easier to prevent, than it is to reverse. This is why you have scientists trying to STRESS the importance of prevention and doing shit now before it's too had and we have to start reversing global warming.

>>10682082
Then use your 40b to reverse that. That kind of money + all the (supposed) support of the scientific community should solve any problem. Just do it!

>>10682088
you don't understand how difficult it'll be.

It may be so difficult, that all the energy spent reversing global warming, will just add more to global emissions and increase it even further. In short, it may not even be possible to reverse it. There's a consensus that once CO2 concentrations reach 400ppm that it'll be practically impossible to lower them past the 400ppm point. We passed that point just a few years ago, and we can't even imagine a way to reverse it.

>>10681874
I think the major debate with climate change isn’t if it’s happening it’s what exactly is causing it. The amount of variables in studying such a problem is almost infinite making scientific study extremely arduous. Then you throw in climate deniers and apocalyptic climate types who both benefit from the argumentative situation (both sides make hella money because of the conflict) you have a situation where neither side wants to fix the problem because both sides would lose money. So we all probably deserve to die anyway.

>>10682095
Based

>>10682095
exon mobile knew in the 70's. They had internal studies that plotted the predicted rise in temperature correlated with co2. It's pretty spot on, but so far it's happening faster than their predictions. Oh, they're now getting sued for replacing that study with a massive misinformation campaign. I'm convinced most climate change denialists are shills working for oil company. Oil companies have a liability in all this, so they gotta cover their ass by delaying justice with confusion, misinformation, and petty bickering.

>>10681874
>>10681883
>>10681884
>>10681914
>>10681920
>>10682056
>in this episode of an 80 IQ /pol/tard makes a thread
Everyone provided logical arguments you are just ignoring them with your fingers in your ear.

Let me spell it out for you Mr. Retard: science already solved the problem, it’s called renewable energy. Now it’s society’s job to implement it. There’s literally nothing more for scientists to do realistically, and there are hundreds of research projects still working on futuristic solutions for when fuckups like you vote another Drumpf into the office who refuses to make significant changes towards renewable infrastructure

Do you understand now, moron?

>>10682106
So do people like al gore who make millions, preaching the end of the world if things aren’t changed immediately. Both sides are to blame for the scientific stagnation

>>10682115
Basically I’m saying that climate change is a complicated situation and switching to renewable energy is just part of the problem. But neither side wants to change. One side the oil companies make money off of antiquated energy practices and the other makes money off of fear and sometimes misinformation. If greed was thrown out and either side cared about the environment shit would be moving a lot faster to help fix the actual problem.

>>10681874
Climate change Israel more like. Also currently there is no replacement for plastic or a chemical process to replace the Haber process to make ammonia. Our understanding of polymer science and organics increases by the day. Have no fear, I will have the problem solved in a jiffy. And progress is being made on all fronts. Trump has switched the U.S. onto natural gas for energy production which is a heck of a lot cleaner than coal. We're going Nuclear next.

>>10682123
>Basically I’m saying
>I’m saying
>I'm
not the same person from >>10682106

>>10682115
I don't listen to al gore so I don't know what if/any armageddon BS he's been saying. All I can say is Al Gore is a politician, NOT a scientist. You can expect a little corruption from politicians, that's just the game/world they live in. It doesn't change the facts that the scientists put out though.

>>10682151
Where do you think the scientists get their grant money from anon?

>>10682155
you realize if you discredit all scientific studies because "somebody" else funded them, you can throw out literally EVERY scientific report. You're going to need more than that alone to discredit anything. You can't just use that excuse to discredit one study because it's convenient for your argument, and not for every one. You might as well ignore all scientific progress and go back to believing the sun revolves around the earth and the moon is made of cheese.

>>10682167
Follow the money anon, the science is there to move to renewable energy. Why isn’t it? Because money is being made on both sides of the aisle. So in this case (on a massive conflict in the science world were lots of money can be made) nothing is being done. None of the science is being discredited it’s being stagnated. Most scientific endeavors are allowed to flourish without much government involvement, like pretty much all of computer technology. But some, like global warming and stem cell research are highly dictated by the government. Scientist tend to have to kiss the ass of the entity that is giving them money for there research. It’s just the way of the game.

>>10682111
Renewable energy can’t compete comercially with fossil fuels. Solve that problem and adoption will be trivial. Trust me, it is more effective than your autistic screeching.

>>10681874
>"To solve the problem"

Idk about you Americunts but over here in Europe we're going pretty fucking green and putting a lot of money on renewable energy R&D

>>10682202
>both sides are faking science just to make money

That's a bold claim backed up by zero evidence. I can't tell if you're trolling me softly, actually have some cognitive deficit, or are just a paid shill shoving a "illogically plausible" theory into the echo chamber or a paid shill attempting to create decisiveness and/or confusion.

Either way, it seems your claim is more wishful thinking and isn't backed by any facts.

>>10681874
Universities and scientists even with all the money in the world can't stop people from operating combustion engine vehicles, they can't stop people from carlessly reproducing, they can't stop people from over eating, all the changes in society require government to enforce them.

>>10681919
>disincentivize
...aaaand 99% have no clue what that means
no wonder you can't get your message thru
protip: use "level playing field" as a phrase instead as in "it prevents a polluting firm A from gaining a competitive advantage over a non-polluting firm B "

>>10682288
Or you could produce replacements for those items by researching renewable energy until it is cheaper than fossil fuels. But well, I am not a fascist so what do I know about the dangers of just letting the state enforce whatever they please with no economic concern.

>>10682307
Economics won't mean jack shit with everyone dead.

>>10682314
Peak climate alarmist delusion.

>>10682202

>>10682317
Peak denial, the ultimate delusion being stuck in your blissful ignorance believing everything is fine.

>>10682329
Well, the people in charge would never accept a solution that would significantly affect their wealth. That is why you are irrelevant. Your solution will never be implemented. You really might just aswell never say anything again because your opinion doesn’t matter. Let the big boys speak, go back to playing with your butt plugs.

>>10681874
>climate change

Not science or math

>>10681874
>what are they waiting for?
3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

Nobody wants to reveal this guy because he is too scary for them, I guess.

>>10681874
How would they fund themselves to force governments globally to cut emissions?

>>10682368
I am honored to have based schizo poster in my thread. God bless you.

>>10682372
Why force governments instead of improving renewable energy technology so that it costs less than fossil fuels and completely kills oil.

>>10682229
I love how this is literally just a co-opted /pol/ meme, further solidifying the notion that the left can't meme

>>10682385
>the left can't meme

>>10682052
>So you want to reduce carbon emmissions without a plan to replace the energy output?
So you beat your wife?

>Or if your plan is to incentivize techniques to reduce the polution while keeping the same energy output then take the 40b and fund researchers to find it and then sell it to the oil companies.
Why?

>>10682393
>Why?
To solve climate change. I mean, you say it is real and is a big deal right?

>>10681874
here's the quick rundown
1 - inventing a new energy method isn't easy, if someone made a realistic replacement for gasoline it would be a trillion dollar industry overnight. it's not for lack of trying, although you're right colleges could put much more of their fortunes into funding it if they really cared that much, which brings me to my next point
2 - liberals don't want to solve problems, they want someone else to while they moral grandstand

>>10682415
Well, I congratulate you for actually getting my point. To contend with your first point a bit, I’d say it IS easy. The foundation is there, all we need is R&D to achieve the technical improvements we need for comercialization. With Harvard endowment money and the hundreds of independent research teams Harvard could command, climate change could be solved in < 10 years.

>>10682278
even china seems to be able to get their shit together... now it's on you ameriboys

>>10682306
what are you a communications major? go back to /soc/ or something you fucking faggot, everyone here knows what "disincentivize" means

>>10682382
nuclear is already cheaper than everything else...

>>10682428
what foundation are you referring to? I don't think solar and wind are going to cut it. nuclear could do it but there's a very low public opinion of it

>>10682442
Great! Use your money to fund it and then the economics dictate fossil fuels will get fucked and electric will be the future. Godspeed.

>>10682448
Solar and wind can be improved. Regarding nuclear, public opinion can suck my dick. Money talks. When the public finds out their energy is cheaper they’ll forget about whatever brainlet concerns they have. And you do not need the public’s approval to fund nuclear. Money + politics achieves anything. Harvard has the money and the political connections.

Always has been!

>>10682215
Easy carbon tax, there I solved it where's my prize?

>>10682442
only with the taxpayer funding it.

>>10682453
>When the public finds out their energy is cheaper they’ll forget about whatever
can't argue with that lol. we drive around every day which is by far the highest cause of death but it's what's most convenient so we push that to the back of our minds.
I don't think it's that simple though, you'll get a huge pushback anywhere you try to build a reactor. we could maybe pull it off by putting them all up in northern Canada or something.

>>10682440
stop random people and ask, it'll be a real eye-opener

>>10682519
I didn't realize there were any normal people here. Just the standard /sci/ autists and /pol/ evangelists.

>>10682398
We already have a solution and you want endowments to be used to further research a different solution that may not even exist. What a waste of money.

>>10682609
what, solar and wind?

>>10682082
Bill Nye lit a globe on fire and called anyone who is skeptical an asshole. Don't pretend like the warmists are all rational and scientifically rigorous.

>>10682626
he did say "any credible climate scientist"

>>10682617
Carbon taxes, nuclear, and renewables.

>>10682626
Bill Nye is an entertainer, his skit was dare I say it entertaining? Besides nothing he claimed was not factual so I don't even see the problem.

>>10682111
>already solved the problem, it’s called renewable energy
I'd just like to interject, what you're calling renewable energy is actually renewable energy+battery.

>>10682278
>>10682433
Is that why China is adding another 300-500GW of coal capacity and Germany still has roughly the same rate of carbon emissions per unit of energy that it did at the start of the decade?

Face it, renewables are a meme because in order to store energy when production exceeds usage or to use it when production falls below usage, the have to rely on the shitty energy density of batteries, which aren't even at 1 MW/kg. Fossil fuels get into 30-50 MW/kg range, and Uranium can do a million times better than that. Its why France is the only modern economy that has cheap green energy.

>>10682717
comparing consumable fuel density to batteries is fucking retarded.

>>10682607
>normal people here
more emotionally fucked anons here, but on average just as dumb

>>10682719
The fact that Germany is building Gas power plants despite muh renewables says otherwise.
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/enbw-expects-construction-new-gas-power-plants-germany
Liquefied natural gas can easily be stored at energy densities at ~50 times of what batteries can do.

>>10682738
>energy density
do you have brain damage? in what universe is space your only concern? Simply the fact you have to ship fuel in constantly as opposed to just recharging completely undermines any point you're attempting to make.

>>10682742
Energy density matters because it is far easier and cheaper to stockpile of fossil fuels that it is to stopckpile energy from renewables, the poor energy density of batteries means that the cost of storing energy increases non-linearly the more you rely on them.

>>10682748
You're an idiot, initial cost of batteries is the important bit not the fact you have to throw them in a warehouse somewhere. They don't even have to be on site they can be 30 miles away from the city for all it matters.

>>10681874
Because when the problem essentially boils down to massive and growing amounts of consumption and the only proposed "solutions" to that problem are more consumption, you've sort of found yourself in a bit of a pickle.

>>10681874
Just fix the problem If it's real! Haha climate fags btfo and will never recover!

>>10682755
>initial cost of batteries is the important bit
You still have to buy a lot of them due to thier poor energy storage (and replace them as they age) which, is why its gets prohibitively expensive past a certain threshold.
https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-the-planet/

>>10682758
>you've sort of found yourself in a bit of a pickle.
This. The only way that you could slow/stop carbon emissions is if you decided to engage in degrowth in some sectors of the economy, and banks don't particularly like that given that they expect interest on their loans.

>>10681874
Oh boy oh boy....
humanity is going to be using less efficient forms of energy in the future....

WOMP WOMP

>>10682766
No one said it would be cheap but it's a hell of a lot cheaper than dealing with the damage climate change will cause over the next 100 years. Intermittency isn't an unsolvable problem there's tons of research on how to do it. but it's more expensive than burning coal and letting our kids pay for it.

>>10682707
Bill Nye and all other "communicators" are pop-sci sensationalists who are overall lowering the level of dialog on any topic they comment on and clearly see themselves and are seen by their fanboys as much more than just an entertainer

>>10682700
ok that's fair. now how do we get the masses to not reeee at the mention of nuclear is the next problem

>>10682792
pop sci is above the level of most Americans sadly. The only way to get your message across is late night comedy. I'm not sure what level of dialog you think is even possible in a country that can't even accept evolution.

>>10682783
>Intermittency isn't an unsolvable problem
I know it isn't, but I'm not going to hold my breath and assume that a solution will appear in the next 10-20 years.
Its why I brought up France as an example to emulate as opposed to Germany.

>>10682775
Not if if we use nuclear.

>>10682792
This is why I hate popsci and the environment that has grown around it. It presents science in a way that's supposed to be entertaining, but do so it has to cut down on details that most people can't be bothered to pay attention to or learn about. So all public lay discussion on a given topic is predicated on "well x communicator said this over simplified explanation, but y pundit disproved it, so z theory is wrong"

>>10682799
Fucked if I know, part of the problem is that a lot of people who are concerned about the environment are atomphobes.

>>10682806
I actually agree with France being a good model. Socializing our grid would fix most problems.

>>10682806
true that, I was wondering why AOC just immediately dismissed nuclear in her retarded green plan. they'll never promote something as ballsy as a shift to nuclear, solar panels and big pinwheels are a much more marketable face

>>10682805
agreed, take this one measly upvote, it's all I can offer

>>10682875
Green deal won't ever happen it's just meant to get people talking. Now the Obama administration's energy plan heavily relied on nuclear power, unfortunately it's all gone away in favor of coal and NG under trump

>>10682875
Last time I checked a Gallup poll opinions are nuclear were like 44% against 40% in favor and the rest were unsure. But I've been trying to paying politics much less attention recently, so maybe that's changed, but I doubt it would haves changed by that much in the time since given fears about radiation that are exaggerated by poor science knowledge among the general public.

>>10682889
opinion doesn't build power plants, private companies do. nuclear is just too expensive up front compared to pretty much anything else to appeal to investors.

>>10682882
Trump does favor nuclear though iirc

>>10682897
>opinion doesn't build power plants
But in the context of public policy proposals like the green new deal it does

>expensive up front
Sadly this is case, and since solar and wind are cheap upfront but are actually fairly expensive in the long term, they get touted as a silver bullet despite having problems in the long term.

>>10682900
over renewables yes actually subsidizing nuclear plants to the level they need to be competitive over NG hell no

>>10682889
yeah I think the Japan thing most recently is what's scaring people. we're not comparable at all though because they have no excess land in Japan while we can just put them out in the middle of the desert here