Leaderboard

At my local supermarket

I seem to be seeing a number of influences who are rejecting the science for climate change on economical grounds whilst at the same time arguing that those who understand the science are "brainwashed". With recent laws being passed in our government requiring a minimum 48% reduction i believe in greenhouse gasses by 2050. I know the target should be 2030 however i believe now there is a direction we will probably be able to hit a higher target quicker. the argument is that the economical hit that will have due to our low contribution to the total around 1.5%. that being said because our (Australia) low population it puts us up near the top of the list with greenhouse gas production and when you consider the effects Australian branded coal has its even worse. that being said i am seeing a lot of armchair experts that seem to be pushing the argument that it is our transition to renewables namely solar that is the cause the sharp increase in power prices on the local market. this i find very interesting especially when you step back and look at the market our recent cost increase in power production has a direct correlation between global coal and gas prices and is compounded by energy producers who where deliberately holding back electricity supply because "it was not profitable enough" to put generates online. so it is a direct result of fossil fuels that our power prices are so expensive. Looking at countries that have either reached or is close to 100% renewable energy they are all at the bottom of the list when it comes cost of energy. namely Norway and Iceland who have power prices i would dream of, so it seems to be a fallacy to argue that renewable energy is more expensive. additionally a very large portion of our Country is sprawling barren desert that would easily house acres and acres of solar power. our country is surrounded in ocean so tidal power generation is an additional option along with wind power all tied in together would easily meet any power generation needs very cheaply. So the question i have to ask is why is there such opposition from the right wing conservative minded people to this transition. I mean kicking and screaming comes to mind. The influence i am thinking of recently quoted what one of our leading climate scientists said and then disagreed with him that we should do something about it claiming that we don't contribute much to the global percentage then claimed it would increase the cost of electricity locally.

Hi swansot this is not my complete explanation or an extensive technical reply but I would prefer that this discussion continues. I am proposing a neat equation much like E=mc2 to describe the complex emotional dynamics of how small but significant social incidents trigger a mass social response. If you read this MIT article, excerpt, and link below you may understand my attempt to describe the concept more clearly. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I'm going to retire from this thread, if anybody stumbles on this idea and want's to take it forward " FILL YOUR BOOTS " as they say 🙂👍

An interesting drone video of a Russian tank ‘regrouping’ after the sudden breakthrough by Ukraine army forces during their latest offensive in the Kharkiv Oblast area which led to the capture of the cities of Kupiansk and Izium within the last 48 hours. The video shows the fleeing tank shedding Russian soldiers into the road as it swerves wildly around abandoned vehicles, before crashing into a tree at high speed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWfV12XnTH0

You can put me down any way you like. What I am in theory is anarcho-communist - in the original sense of communal, or tribal governance, with wide latitude for individual freedom. In modern practice, I'm a liberal socialist; I vote for the platform closest to my favoured agenda, within the confines of a very imperfect party system in a very imperfect first-past-the-post election format. Of course I would prefer to participate in consensus decision-making, rather than dictate to others how they should live or have anyone in authority dictate to me. Yes, a rational form of government would put the competent and cool team leaders in charge of energy production, vaccine distribution, school-building and disaster relief, because the Brownies and Betsies have not been doing a heckuva job. The very few people I know well just want to be left alone to do their art or science or fixing cars or growing blueberries, while somebody else makes sure the showers are hot and the beer is cold and there's corn flakes on the grocery store shelf. They don't want to spend their life pulling administrative strings or ordering anybody around. It seems reasonable to me to share labour and responsibility, as well as assets and knowledge.

I think we could actually deliver the former (because the latter works only intermittently) in this computer age. So much of our society (US at least) is based on over-complication of process, requiring specialty skills to deal with them. People with undue influence and power make our processes unnecessarily intricate so they have more profit opportunities. Lawyers add a language you need other lawyers to decipher. Our taxes, Medicare, even voting has been purposely made difficult so we need professional help. I think, if we removed so many of the unnecessary obstacles invented by wealth extremists, citizens could have more input into a less opaque and more representative system. With security that's actually concerned with protecting rights, is there any reason why we couldn't be voting on a LOT more important issues via our own computers, quickly, easily, and safely? There's such a cloud over our processes in the US, and it's hard to think about a life where the average citizen is valued highly and treated like our limited resources are valuable too. Where else do people pay into a retirement system that's labeled an "entitlement" by the wealthy? I don't think a democracy should be focused so heavily on taking resources from its people.

I largely agree, but we have to be careful with the langauge we use (bolded) as it can be used to separate the population into, entitled to vote and not entitled to have a view; there's few people better placed to recognise/critique a self serving/greedy politician, than a criminal. I'm reminded of this, as a demonstration of the fine line a true democracy needs to tread.

Some people are more or less considerate twds others and I imagine that they carry that approach into their dealings with the community at large . How do groups of people who have committed crimes of self interest feel about an idea like democracy?(it could be -maybe is, a social study) Criminals are often used in battles against the common enemy as in the Sicilian mafia against the Nazis and now Putin releasing prison inmates and other crazies against Ukraine. Anyway, my idea for democracy is that everyone's existence merits some consideration (if welcomed).We are all members of the club and should not be ignored.

You really need to stop blaming the rape victim for being raped. The rapist is the one at fault. Full stop.

Before I throw a long posting on this topic, I would like to say that we should realise that a lot of these expressions are colloquially used in daily language. Critising people for not using these terms in their (philosophical) technical meaning is often not useful. If somebody presents some reasons why she thinks something, and calls it 'logical' I normally do not have any problem with that. If the viewpoint expressed is not correct, I will just give arguments against it, not caring about the 'misuse' of the word 'logical'. Only when somebody thinks she has given a logically impeccable argument, i.e. she is really referring to the power of formal logic, I will confront the misuse. When I look at the list that Studiot has given, I would say it is a nice list, with a slowly less convincing 'feeling' about it: 'logical' being something like 'having strong arguments in favour' of a viewpoint, till 'sensible' which is already approaching 'intuitional' or based on similarities with other argumentations/phenomena/processes/things... that the speaker sees. So the context in which words from Studiot's list are used is important. If I may use a not so philosophical concept...: it is not always necessary to be an ant fucker on the (mis)use of these expressions. Maybe I will post some more later, on the exact question of the question in the topic. Formally, there is definitely a difference between 'logical' and 'rational', and some of the postings here have correct pointers at this difference. I like DrmDoc's posting here very much. I might have not even much more to say if we stick precisely to the question of the topic. (Ok, there we go.. +1 )

Which means absolute rot. As long as you been here on this SCIENCE site you'd think that by now you'd catch on that you cannot make claims without evidence. You've been doing this type of crap for ages. Please knock it off. All of your bullshit links have to do with territory, not racism.

I believe I did support my claim, with references to human evolution. It's a wide field. If you don't think human evolution was of a fiercely territorial nature, then you don't even have the basics and citations would mean nothing to you. However, here are a few : https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/004724847690035X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364661321001522 https://www.vox.com/2014/4/28/5661186/evolution-war-cause I think you have to be pretty blind NOT to detect any aggressive racist or territorial tendency in human nature, but if you can't work it out for yourself, then the evidence is abundant. Google is great for finding stuff out. I can recommend it.

I've already covered that point. You seem incapable of reading or comprehending, even when it's big, bold and blue. If you read my post above, you would see that the vast majority (68.4%) of ethnic Ukrainians living in Crimea thought that the referendum result reflected the will of the people of Crimea, and only 14.5% thought it didn't. But you, sat on your arse, looking at your screen, think you somehow know better than the ethnic ukrainian people living through it. If anyone needs waking up, it's you.

No, I'm not going to research the bleedin obvious for you. If you disagree that humans have a racist tendency, say why. I've said why I think they do have and where I think it comes from. I've pointed to some racist instances, I could go on all day. If you think it just appears from nowhere, you need to justify that, in the same way that I have. I pointed to our evolutionary history, you've just parroted yourself.