Red
Well-Known Member
I believe some of the anti climate science movement is part of a generalized attack on authority in all its forms. I'm most familiar with this trend in the subject area of American history. The History Network, principally through its offering "America Unearthed", and through the theories of that program's principle protagonist, a geologist whose specialty is the forensics of concrete, not History, has promoted the notion, which first appeared in sensationalized and fictionalized stories of 19th century newspapers trying to outsell one another, that the Smithsonian Institution has engaged in a systematic repression of the truths of American prehistory. Nothing could be further from the truth, but that does not stop those who would attack authority in all areas of knowledge from supporting this fiction. So, this attack on authority in the subject of history is in a similar vein to attacks on science as a source of authority pertaining to our knowledge of the natural world. Whether one is dealing with politics, the social sciences, or the hard sciences, attack on authority as elites trying to pull the wool over the eyes of non specialists has been on the rise for awhile now.
Seen as an upwelling of irrational thought, not the first time in Western cultural history, it becomes very difficult to accept at face value, since the entire aim seems to be the simple undermining of authority, and not the creation of viable theories or interpretations that deal with actual facts. If it simply pushes the narrative "the experts are wrong, and they may even be trying to deceive the public", the public feels empowered. And, right now, that narrative really sells, as the public, significant numbers of the public, have arrived at a position of fundamental distrust of authority in all its forms.
Rejection of authority for its own sake is irrational, and is a nihilistic mindset that replaces knowledge with ignorance. Pretty hard to put any faith or trust into such a movement. There's a reason both hard scientists and social scientists undergo training in their respective disciplines. The reaction against these authorities in the modern era is an effort to claim untrained and uneducated members of the public are qualified to overturn the received wisdom of the day and replace it with poorly reasoned, and often conspiracy-tinged, alternatives. It's BS, but it's very potent BS, because it is doing a very good job undermining confidence in science among the public. It's pop science, pop history, pop archaeology. It does not adhere to tough standards where evidence and logical argument is concerned. The uneducated would bring the educated down to their level. Next, we will see a movement to allow anybody off the street to perform brain surgery. Surgeons are simply another elite. If America is a late stage democracy where an unqualified reality TV star can get elected President, the same attitude that even rank amateurs can overturn historical narratives with no formal training, and poor use of facts, is also very much holding sway where our bodies of learning are concerned.
The barbarians are at the gates. And they battered their way through the gates some time ago. They would elevate the ignorance of the uneducated and promote ignorance at every turn. Now they have an anti-science President, a devotee of conspiracy theory, to lead the way.
Seen as an upwelling of irrational thought, not the first time in Western cultural history, it becomes very difficult to accept at face value, since the entire aim seems to be the simple undermining of authority, and not the creation of viable theories or interpretations that deal with actual facts. If it simply pushes the narrative "the experts are wrong, and they may even be trying to deceive the public", the public feels empowered. And, right now, that narrative really sells, as the public, significant numbers of the public, have arrived at a position of fundamental distrust of authority in all its forms.
Rejection of authority for its own sake is irrational, and is a nihilistic mindset that replaces knowledge with ignorance. Pretty hard to put any faith or trust into such a movement. There's a reason both hard scientists and social scientists undergo training in their respective disciplines. The reaction against these authorities in the modern era is an effort to claim untrained and uneducated members of the public are qualified to overturn the received wisdom of the day and replace it with poorly reasoned, and often conspiracy-tinged, alternatives. It's BS, but it's very potent BS, because it is doing a very good job undermining confidence in science among the public. It's pop science, pop history, pop archaeology. It does not adhere to tough standards where evidence and logical argument is concerned. The uneducated would bring the educated down to their level. Next, we will see a movement to allow anybody off the street to perform brain surgery. Surgeons are simply another elite. If America is a late stage democracy where an unqualified reality TV star can get elected President, the same attitude that even rank amateurs can overturn historical narratives with no formal training, and poor use of facts, is also very much holding sway where our bodies of learning are concerned.
The barbarians are at the gates. And they battered their way through the gates some time ago. They would elevate the ignorance of the uneducated and promote ignorance at every turn. Now they have an anti-science President, a devotee of conspiracy theory, to lead the way.
DutchJazzer
Banned
No, it's not rejection of "Authority" or "Truth" at all. The Smithsonian deliberately projects a view of reality that is coherent with the Oxford/British intellectual tradition and Anglophile views of everything. Of course the "natives" everywhere are barbarians, and the druids of England are, well, mystics with ancient wisdom we have yet to unravel.
Trump is not intellectual at all, and has literally no anti-science prejudices. He relies on engineers to design his buildings, on scientists to make steel and cement really strong, and chemists to make pretty colors, and mathematicians to make profitable casino games, and advertising professionals to wow the crowds. If he has to please a crowd a bit by questioning unpopular "science" it means only he's playing the crowd. He will sit and listen to Al Gore for pete's sake, and Obama too, because he is a reasonable fellow, cheerful and interested in what others think. He knows he doesn't know it all, he pays others to answer stuff for him who do know it.
You've turned into quite the conspiracist theorist, Red. You see stuff that isn't there at all. You believe ideological tracts devoted to one world view, owned by folks interested in one path forward for humanity that benefits themselves. stuff put out by demonstrated repeat-offender bald faced liars, like the NY Times. You know, folks who through the twenties and thirties of the last century held Stalin up as "progress" for this world.
https://www.weeklystandard.com/pulitzer-winning-lies/article/4040
It's a cool idea but the trash power plants aren't all that efficient or economical. They're small scale and have a tendency to break down. The gas stream and chemical composition is inconsistent, which creates a ton of problems. There is a reason most of the garbage dumps required to collect and control volatile's (over 50 megagrams/year) opt to flare them instead of producing energy.
The cow **** pits in California might provide a better and more consistent gas stream, but the new reg proposals I'm seeing are on the catalytic conversion side aimed at the mega-barns only instead of power generation. They are entirely 100% cost increase with no offsetting commercial benefit from what I can see, but the studies claim they are a very low-cost reduction target (we base our reduction regulations in large part on price per ton of pollutants).
Well, then. . . . put that flare where it can boil water and co-locate a MSF desalination plant using water from the sewage plant. Irrigate some roadside shrubs or flowers with recycle water.
Entropy, location, etc. etc. If power generation alone isn't economical then pumping sea water and desalinating isn't going to be either.
One thing I failed to mention was that these plants aren't large scale enough to afford the pollution controls that a coal fired power plant can.
WTS, you know I agree with you about a massive western water project, as well as a mid-west program. I wouldn't mind some kind of program of paying every Californian to put solar panels on their houses and making a deal with the [already heavily price regulated] power companies to push excess power into desalination plants and pumps. Free power for the citizens, water for the farmers (lower food prices for all, more economically competitive US markets), better riparian zones upstream, less litigation costs between state fights over water... we could even create lakes and dams that recoup at least a portion of the pumping energy while also creating new habitat.