The Other Side of Midnight - Richard C. Hoagland - Live Chat Thread

[Mind Flayer Monk]

Tonights show:

I remember seeing that movie in a theater-no idea what the story was and it turned out to be great.

[Mind Flayer Monk]

I found the supermarket that tried to hire the Hoagster. I imagine Showroom Dummy has the album.
The Galactic Supermarket

https://youtu.be/cW1jZqRBI0Q

[(Sandman) Logan-5]

Ok all, guess this one's winding down.  You know your insomnia's acting up when you're looking for that post-OSOM show to watch or listen to.  Oh well, hope y'all get some sleep.  Later.

Take Care Dapper Squirrel. 

[(Sandman) Logan-5]

I remember seeing that movie in a theater-no idea what the story was and it turned out to be great.

That had to be kick ass in the theater. Excellent sound track to that flick. I first saw it when it hit the network channels about 3 years later.

[(Sandman) Logan-5]

I found the supermarket that tried to hire the Hoagster. I imagine Showroom Dummy has the album.
The Galactic Supermarket

https://youtu.be/cW1jZqRBI0Q

Holy SHIT !  Now that's what Hoagy should be using for bumber music - lol 

[(Sandman) Logan-5]

SL5 haha was that a googol?

For clarification, that # was 9.58 googol, or 42 points of exponentiation shy of a full googolplex.
Count them if you like.   lol

OK guys, I got the lights. Catch you on the flip side.     

[GravitySucks]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq4Bc2WCsdE

This wins best post of the night

[Chronaut]

This wins best post of the night

When I have questions about an issue, I generally prefer to consult scientists rather than a talking bear.

According to this NASA page, human industrial activity has increased carbon dioxide levels in the Earth's atmosphere by 1/3rd, and the solar irradiance theory fails to model the observed temperature increases and the thermal stratification caused by greenhouses gases in the atmosphere:

http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

Anyway, I realized last night when RCH didn't bring up his stupid "hyperdimensional physics" garbage, or his zany Mars/Moon artifacts stuff, that he's fully aware that they're empirically indefensible hokum, so I cancelled my subscription.  He wastes everyone's time talking about that crap, but when he's talking to a real scientist he suddenly keeps his mouth shut about it.  Fuck him.

[GravitySucks]

When I have questions about an issue, I generally prefer to consult scientists rather than a talking bear.

According to this NASA page, human industrial activity has increased carbon dioxide levels in the Earth's atmosphere by 1/3rd, and the solar irradiance theory fails to model the observed temperature increases and the thermal stratification caused by greenhouses gases in the atmosphere:

http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

Anyway, I realized last night when RCH didn't bring up his stupid "hyperdimensional physics" garbage, or his zany Mars/Moon artifacts stuff, that he's fully aware that they're empirically indefensible hokum, so I called my subscription.  He wastes everyone's time talking about that crap, but when he's talking to a real scientist he suddenly keeps his mouth shut about it.  Fuck him.

NASA says there are no alien moon bases and that we actually went to the moon. I suppose you believe that too.

LOL

p.s. I don't trust NASA's climate modeling, at least not the versions that actually get to publication.

[Chronaut]

NASA says there are no alien moon bases and that we actually went to the moon. I suppose you believe that too.

LOL

Yep I'm credulous sucker like that, always falling for stuff like a preponderance of "evidence" and logic"  =D

p.s. I don't trust NASA's climate modeling, at least not the versions that actually get to publication.

What do you trust?  I've dug into this stuff a couple of times over the years, and each time I found the scientific evidence and rationale for anthropogenic global warming to be quite compelling.  I've seen some interesting debates about the details, like about the cosmic ray / cloud formation mechanism, but the credible debates seem to all take place within the context of the human causation model.

I don't understand why so many people seem to react so violently to the idea that 7 billion humans and 150 years of aggressive industrial activity have impacted the environment.  I'm more concerned with the carcinogens we've belched all over the planet and the global epidemic of cancer that's caused, but it's irrational to think that burning a trillion barrels of oil isn't going to impact the atmosphere.

[SciFiAuthor]

I don't understand why so many people seem to react so violently to the idea that 7 billion humans and 150 years of aggressive industrial activity have impacted the environment. 

Because the issue became politicized. The moment that happens to a scientific issue, all objectivity goes out the window regardless if you are on the right or the left.

[GravitySucks]

Yep I'm credulous sucker like that, always falling for stuff like a preponderance of "evidence" and logic"  =D

What do you trust?  I've dug into this stuff a couple of times over the years, and each time I found the scientific evidence and rationale for anthropogenic global warming to be quite compelling.  I've seen some interesting debates about the details, like about the cosmic ray / cloud formation mechanism, but the credible debates seem to all take place within the context of the human causation model.

I don't understand why so many people seem to react so violently to the idea that 7 billion humans and 150 years of aggressive industrial activity have impacted the environment.  I'm more concerned with the carcinogens we've belched all over the planet and the global epidemic of cancer that's caused, but it's irrational to think that burning a trillion barrels of oil isn't going to impact the atmosphere.

I like to see open debate in scientific circles. The money behind carbon credit trading has silenced most of that debate. Funding is only provided for studies that set out to confirm a predisposed agenda. James Hansen got me jaded on NASA as an independent, unbiased research organization.

I haven't dug into to it in awhile, so I am afraid to just start posting links without doing a bunch of research, and I am not that interested in doing that because it raises my blood pressure.

From what I have seen, there is some evidence that CO2 trails climate change. Our burning fossil fuels did not cause the temperature of Mars to rise.

I agree the toxins and radioactive shit should be the biggest concern and I wish we were doing development on thorium reactors.  Fusion may not be too far off.

In the mean time I try to do my part by not being wasteful, planting trees, keeping the ones I have healthy and not wasting water. Other than that, there is not much else I can affect.

My gut tells me that carbon credit trading is going to cost trillions in wealth redistribution and not have 1% effect on CO2.

[Chronaut]

Because the issue became politicized. The moment that happens to a scientific issue, all objectivity goes out the window regardless if you are on the right or the left.

Yeah, that's right.  The tone of the discussion on this subject has become as abrasive and unproductive as the discussions I hear about economics and social policies between Reds and Blues.  It's as if people absorb some ideas into their sense of personal identity, and suddenly a debate on the subject becomes synonymous with questioning their validity as a human being.

I wish I knew how to decouple an idea from political ideology, because if we can't look at scientific evidence dispassionately and make rational decisions about it, sooner or later our entire global civilization is going down the crapper.

[SciFiAuthor]

I wish I knew how to decouple an idea from political ideology, because if we can't look at scientific evidence dispassionately and make rational decisions about it, sooner or later our entire global civilization is going down the crapper.

It's not possible to decouple it once money and political interest become part of an issue. What will happen is that we'll spend trillions to cut emissions that result in a .003 percent savings in overall atmospheric carbon over a century or some such ridiculousness like that, the right and left will fight over it endlessly, and a group of apoliticial scientists and engineers will quietly come up with a technological solution, implement it, and everything will be fine and the whole issue will fade from the public debate.

[onan]

and a group of apoliticial scientists and engineers will quietly come up with a technological solution, implement it, and everything will be fine and the whole issue will fade from the public debate.

I don't share your optimism on this one. Perhaps if there were any legitimate discussion of weening off of a petroleum based infrastructure, my thoughts would change.

I agree there is a politicized agenda. That being the case, caution would be advisable. Instead we continue on with little serious consensus to change. We are now being told that we will be able to emotionally nudge or shame nations into increasing their restrictions over the next 20 years.

[zeebo]

For clarification, that # was 9.58 googol, or 42 points of exponentiation shy of a full googolplex.

Ha ok so the difference between impossibly huge and slightly more impossibly huge.   

[Chronaut]

From what I have seen, there is some evidence that CO2 trails climate change. Our burning fossil fuels did not cause the temperature of Mars to rise.

I’ll have to look into the CO2 trailing climate change issue.  I’ve looked at the graphs of the best multi-disciplinary charts of temperature rise though, and there’s a clear vertical spike at the dawn of the industrial age, which sure looks compelling as a circumstantial causal connection â€" natural cycles always rise and fall much more gradually.

My understanding of the Martian data is that the polar ice caps on Mars dramatically grow and shrink seasonally.  And we’ve been monitoring the Sun’s output pretty precisely for decades, and I haven’t seen any indication of an energy output spike, which would be necessary if we’re to believe that the Sun caused icecap melting on Mars. 

I agree the toxins and radioactive shit should be the biggest concern and I wish we were doing development on thorium reactors.  Fusion may not be too far off.

In the mean time I try to do my part by not being wasteful, planting trees, keeping the ones I have healthy and not wasting water. Other than that, there is not much else I can affect.

I’m a big advocate of heat mining â€" we literally have all the energy we need right under our feet in the Earth’s mantle.  MIT released a great study a few years ago about the prospects for extracting energy from the giant nuclear reactor right beneath us, and it looked very promising.

There’s also some brilliant work out there about ambient energy harvesting â€" check out stochastic resonance.  Bistable systems can harness entropic energy, which opens the door to all kinds of energy possibilities, maybe even harvesting the ambient heat in the air and water - a concept that runs contrary to conventional thinking.  We’re literally awash in thermal energy; and until recently, we thought it was inaccessible without a thermal gradient. 

My gut tells me that carbon credit trading is going to cost trillions in wealth redistribution and not have 1% affect on CO2.

Yeah, I don’t believe in political solutions either.  It’s a physics problem; we should solve it with science and technology.  Frankly we should be relying on science to shape our policies, rather than government, imo â€" politicians are the most corrupt and ignorant fuckers around; we’re insane for letting people like that run our country.  The scientific process isn’t perfect either, but at least it’s founded on the search for truth, rather than lies and mind control.

[SciFiAuthor]

I don't share your optimism on this one. Perhaps if there were any legitimate discussion of weening off of a petroleum based infrastructure, my thoughts would change.

It won't matter. There are many ways to cool a planet. Some of them are ridiculously easy and cheap and are being quietly studied while everyone infights. The days of oil and coal will eventually end, probably sooner rather than later, as truly viable power generation methods such as fusion or thorium nuclear power become reality.

I agree there is a politicized agenda. That being the case, caution would be advisable. Instead we continue on with little serious consensus to change. We are now being told that we will be able to emotionally nudge or shame nations into increasing their restrictions over the next 20 years.

Which is all a dog and pony show. If you look at any of the plans out there as far as carbon emissions reductions nation to nation, you find that the net result is very little in the way of meaningful reduction over the hundred year term. Laughable numbers in reality. There is no political solution to the problem.

[GravitySucks]

It won't matter. There are many ways to cool a planet. Some of them are ridiculously easy and cheap and are being quietly studied while everyone infights. The days of oil and coal will eventually end, probably sooner rather than later, as truly viable power generation methods such as fusion or thorium nuclear power become reality.

Which is all a dog and pony show. If you look at any of the plans out there as far as carbon emissions reductions nation to nation, you find that the net result is very little in the way of meaningful reduction over the hundred year term. Laughable numbers in reality. There is no political solution to the problem.

Why aren't shingles on roofs white, at least in the southern states?

[Morgus]

Apollo 14 astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell has reportedly passed away today.
Hopefully Hoagland will report on this news on his show tonight.
Unfortunately now Hoagland and Dr. Mitchell will never be able to continue their onair debate (from years ago on Art Bell's program) - on earth at least...

[expat]

Yes indeed, we're now down to seven Moonwalkers. Just in case anyone here has never heard about the so-called Hoagland/Mitchell debate, here's a page about it including transcripts.

I call it a "so-called" debate because it's the usual Hoagland talking over Mitchell and generally monopolizing the time allowed.  Hoagland acted very, very dishonestly by asking Mitchell if he was aware that Sec. 305 (i) of the Space Act includes these words: "The Administration shall be considered a defense agency of the United States." Mitchell replied "I've got to admit that's interesting." Hoagland didn't complete the sentence, however. It continues  "... for the purpose of Chapter 17, Title 35 of the US Code." Title 35 is exclusively concerned with boring old patent law. This clause merely brings NASA in line with many other federal agencies in placing some restriction on employees who file patent applications. That's all it means.

I later had a bit of an argument with Mike Bara over this "debate."

[Jackstar]

Title 35 is exclusively concerned with boring old patent law.

Sure, sure, because patents have little to no importance. They're just "old" and "boring."

Wait here, I'm gonna go patent my machine that displays a massive rolleyes. Oh, wait, I think you may have beaten me to it.

[Jackstar]

Apollo 14 astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell has reportedly passed away today.

Well, that's one way to pass through the Van Allen belt.

[GravitySucks]

Yes indeed, we're now down to seven Moonwalkers. Just in case anyone here has never heard about the so-called Hoagland/Mitchell debate, here's a page about it including transcripts.

I call it a "so-called" debate because it's the usual Hoagland talking over Mitchell and generally monopolizing the time allowed.  Hoagland acted very, very dishonestly by asking Mitchell if he was aware that Sec. 305 (i) of the Space Act includes these words: "The Administration shall be considered a defense agency of the United States." Mitchell replied "I've got to admit that's interesting." Hoagland didn't complete the sentence, however. It continues  "... for the purpose of Chapter 17, Title 35 of the US Code." Title 35 is exclusively concerned with boring old patent law. This clause merely brings NASA in line with many other federal agencies in placing some restriction on employees who file patent applications. That's all it means.

You come through once again expat. Thanks

[SciFiAuthor]

Why aren't shingles on roofs white, at least in the southern states?

While it won't help with the atmosphere at large, it's a drop in the bucket, but white shingles, white asphalt, etc. can dramatically reduce the heat island effect in major cities and save huge amounts of energy in the long run. It all exists, it's just that most city planning and zoning commissions don't know to enact regulations that require it.

[Jackstar]

You come through once again expat. Thanks

[TigerLily]

Yep I'm credulous sucker like that, always falling for stuff like a preponderance of "evidence" and logic"  =D

What do you trust?  I've dug into this stuff a couple of times over the years, and each time I found the scientific evidence and rationale for anthropogenic global warming to be quite compelling.  I've seen some interesting debates about the details, like about the cosmic ray / cloud formation mechanism, but the credible debates seem to all take place within the context of the human causation model.

I don't understand why so many people seem to react so violently to the idea that 7 billion humans and 150 years of aggressive industrial activity have impacted the environment.  I'm more concerned with the carcinogens we've belched all over the planet and the global epidemic of cancer that's caused, but it's irrational to think that burning a trillion barrels of oil isn't going to impact the atmosphere.

Chronaut. Will you marry me? Love, TigerLily 

[trostol]

Pretend you live in house with all the walls a southern exposure (all walls face south)and a bear walks by the window. What color is it?

[Jackstar]

What color is it?

Bears can't walk on Venus.

[expat]

Pretend you live in house with all the walls a southern exposure (all walls face south)and a bear walks by the window. What color is it?

white. And it's saying "Fuck this global warming"