No, it's not a matter of quality. The issue is where is it on the scale of theoretical to being the best solution to implement. I'm glad we're working to reforest the areas of CA that burned.
I don’t care what you think is “best”. I report FACTS on which solutions are VALID based on science and which are INVALID based on science. Science doesn’t care about your opinions. When it comes to science it is definitely a matter of quality!
Best is important, as budgets aren't infinite. Science is great, but it's not necessarily the case that each finding justifies budget breaking change regardless of other scientifically sound solutions.
More fallacy. I’ve never made any claims about budgets etc. Call Pakistan and give them your opinions on what their 10 billion trees should cost. I’m completely uninterested.
True statement. We get almost all our energy from fusion. You were not aware of that? If you were unaware of that scientific fact you don’t belong in these discussions at all.
LOL! You pushed your idea as a solution. I agreed that the science is probably OK, but that the science is not the only issue with any solution, full or partial.
When someone on Earth is talking about fusion, it is VERY OBVIOUS that they are referring to the attempts to create fusion reactors on Earth. If someone on Earth wants to talk about collecting solar radiation, THAT is what they talk about. For example, YOU did not call your "trees" plan a fusion plan.
It is a solution. It’s the only solution to Pakistans problems with flooding. How did I “push” it? I showed it is supported by scientific evidence. I never “pushed” it. I showed other “solutions” were not supported by evidence.
I didn’t want to talk about fusion at all. It’s your strawman. Sorry I burned it down. I’ve not proposed any plan. That’s another of your fallacious arguments. Many times on PF I’ve pointed out all energy including fossil fuels is solar/fusion energy. I’m completely uninterested in lab fusion (that is happening by the way) or how “hard” it is. It’s difficulty or ease of achievement is completely irrelevant to the climate science I’ve presented. As irrelevant as the ease of tree planting.
Which is likely always going to be a dead end. I have been listening to scientists claiming that "fusion power" is just around the corner for over 4 decades now. And we are no closer to achieving that today than we were when Nixon was in the White House. Hell, I remember about 30 years ago when the world went crazy for "cold fusion". And that has been long ago busted, but many are still spending millions trying to make it true.
Remember that 577 brought up fusion. It's constantly been projected as nearer than it's turned out to be. I think the main point is that it is nowhere near being ready to be a factor in the energy issues we see over the next few decades.
This is the first mention of fusion. By @WillReadmore Not 557. As we can see @WillReadmore has joined the ranks of those willing to post outright falsehoods in the science subforum. Well done destroying the last shreds of your credibility.
I don't see evidence of that. The world of science is showing its position with the IPCC and other such groups of scientists that involve the broad field of sciences related to climatology, as they affect climate. You can see the fundamental position. You can see the questions that are being investigated. Etc. Proposing that the view of those who follow science would not change were these groups to find other answers is REALLY a stretch. I really don't know how you could possibly argue a position such as that. What's your evidence?
Social psychology. A couple good books on the subject are; Collective Illusions by Todd Rose https://www.goodreads.com/book/show...s?ac=1&from_search=true&qid=i16xUbkFnP&rank=1 How Minds Change by David McRaney https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/57933312-how-minds-change Political Tribes by Amy Chua https://www.goodreads.com/book/show...s?ac=1&from_search=true&qid=JV4xH0Uybq&rank=1 Biased by Jennifer L. Eberhardt https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/40407320-biased?ac=1&from_search=true&qid=75OF0fT6ib&rank=2 Regrettably the evidence to support my claims is tough to distill down to a nice bit size easy to understand narrative as the distillation looses too much context to make much sense. If you really want to see how the political left and right are the same you will have to read many books which I doubt many have any desire to do. It is simply easier and more satisfying to blame the other side and minimize or ignore how our in group is in many disturbing ways just as bad as groups we are at odds with.
You made a flat out statement about those who do follow science. In fact, you appear to be saying that they don't follow science!
Some specific evidence on turning a blind eye to science. Both Republicans and Democrats for decades have supported marijuana being illegal even though the science on the issue proves that it is a far less harmful drug than alcohol, nicotine or caffeine which are all legal and taxable. Views on this have changed radically recently, but go back a couple decades and it was a far different story. To this day a Democrat president refuses to decriminalize marijuana and leaves it scheduled in the same classification as heroin which flies in the face of the science. I bet if we all put our heads together we could find many examples of selective support or denial of science on both sides of the political spectrum when it is politically convenient. Political bias acts to blind us to how our in group is often guilty of doing that which we criticize the out group of doing.
Political partisans are selective about the science they respect. Science that reaffirms a predetermined narrative is accepted while science that is injurious to a partisans cherished beliefs will almost certainly be rejected. Partisanship biases. If you doubt what I claim then read the books written by PhD’s with decades of experience in studying human nature. Those that have the best chance to view science without biases skewing their perspective are those that have no political loyalty. Those that want to see scientific realities are best served by abandoning all loyalty to theology and political ideologies as they only act as blinders. Theology and political ideology are treated as conclusions which makes new scientific evidence that threatens the status quo moot. Partisanship makes partisans predictable.
