Author Topic: Episode #597  (Read 3454 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline fuzzyMarmot

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 403
Re: Episode #597
« Reply #15 on: December 18, 2016, 03:12:43 PM »
In principle, I am fine with the subject matter being covered and if this guy is a crank or an expert, having a big name on for an interview makes sense too.  The main problem for me is that there was no introduction to it at all.  No context given for his book.  No Bone Fides given for him.  Also, very little of his arguments as stated had any kind of evidence to back them up and seemed very assumption based.  I think Steve's comments this episode about how he failed to explain to the listeners things which he knew of via his research and explained some of the responses Klein gave which seemed off, hit the nail on the head for the whole thing.  I think he just forgot to include us in his line of thinking about the subject and the man.

I'd like to think that Steve's explanation correctly summarize's the situation: Steve was so familiar with Klein's scientific credentials and evidenced-based research, he forgot to mention any of it in the interview. Perhaps. But the more I read about Klein, the less I believe that is the case. I still haven't seen peer-reviewed work from Klein.

I re-listened to episode 430, the previous time the SGU interviewed him. There was no pushback against his views, and no evidence to support them. Klein said some things that I found a little appalling, using the term "henpecked", and suggesting that the typical Swedish man wants to have extramarital affairs. I also noted that Klein had a controversy with Skepchick, an organization that I support and trust.

I hope we can get further clarification about the choice to give this guy a platform.

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4307
Re: Episode #597
« Reply #16 on: December 18, 2016, 03:18:50 PM »

That's only because we eat so much of it. And calories in, calories out, is physics. Conservation of energy. You cannot gain weight unless you eat more calories than you burn; and you cannot lose weight unless you burn more calories than you eat. Anything else is magic.

If you think your body is a bomb calorimeter and a calorie of broccoli, a calorie of steak and a calorie of coke are the same, I'd say you are lost.

Nobody is violating the laws of physics, but many are overlooking how biology works.
"Our minds are not quite designed to understand how the world works, but, rather, to get out of trouble rapidly an have progeny."  Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Online Eternally Learning

  • Master Mr. a.k.a. Methodical Loaf
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8353
  • Break a leg, badger!
    • Get Past The 140 Character Limit!
Re: Episode #597
« Reply #17 on: December 18, 2016, 04:15:00 PM »
The Rogues are still not worried about (at least on air) about the looming anti-scemce US administration.  I guess I'll just have to rely on other sceptical podcasts like the FFRF, Sam Harris, Rationally Speaking, More or Less...  whatever, to keep up with radically changing face of science in the US.

Since the US is so influential and starting at such a publicly low base of scientific awareness, this change is alarming.

I feel like they are waiting to address it until something actually happens.  Honestly, the Trump administration could take over the podcast if they addressed every news item Trump generates and at this point, while what he's done is disturbing, nothing has really actually occurred to comment on.

Offline The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *****
  • Posts: 5169
Re: Episode #597
« Reply #18 on: December 18, 2016, 04:39:12 PM »
I am very much in favor of their approach, here.  They said from the start that they would address issues, not politics, and that's what they're doing. Presidential appointments are politics, and they are something that, like it or not, the President gets to do.  We could go all-in opposing any one of these candidates and expend a whole lot of energy on defeating one, but in the end Trump's just going to appoint another just as bad.  There will be plenty of opportunities for calls to genuine action, but for now there's really nothing happening but politics.
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline arthwollipot

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5730
  • Observer of Phenomena
Re: Episode #597
« Reply #19 on: December 19, 2016, 04:35:39 AM »
I was surprised that they thought that "in situ" and "in vitro" and "in vivo" were not commonly-known terms. If indeed they are not commonly known, then I am even more surprised. Are people really so ignorant that most don't know these terms?

I think a good proportion of people have probably heard of in vitro fertilisation.

Offline smudge

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: Episode #597
« Reply #20 on: December 19, 2016, 07:25:07 AM »
I am very much in favor of their approach, here.  They said from the start that they would address issues, not politics, and that's what they're doing. Presidential appointments are politics, and they are something that, like it or not, the President gets to do.  We could go all-in opposing any one of these candidates and expend a whole lot of energy on defeating one, but in the end Trump's just going to appoint another just as bad.  There will be plenty of opportunities for calls to genuine action, but for now there's really nothing happening but politics.

How one defines 'issues' and 'politics' is rather fuzzy and open to interpretation. The idea that one can wait until an anti science conspiracy theorist actually imposes a policy rather that challenge the campaign, the appointments, and the arguments given, seems naive in the extreme. It also seems inconsistent and illogical in terms of the way the SGU gang might rail against the appointment of an alt med practitioner if he were assigned a position of power. Would the argument then be to wait until fake treatments had been prescribed before objecting? Should we wait for deaths? Of course not. Should one wait for creationists to impose an anti science teaching programme in schools before challenging it? Or should we seek to stop them having power over science education in the first place? Clearly the latter.

I understand that the SGU gang don't want to be biased in terms of political party. That's sensible. But to duck politics altogether is not possible. To ignore politics is itself political. To pretend not to have a stance is to take a stance. It is simply a stance that makes one either a complicit bystander or an irrelevance.




Offline daniel1948

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5164
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Episode #597
« Reply #21 on: December 19, 2016, 07:52:15 AM »

That's only because we eat so much of it. And calories in, calories out, is physics. Conservation of energy. You cannot gain weight unless you eat more calories than you burn; and you cannot lose weight unless you burn more calories than you eat. Anything else is magic.

If you think [that] a calorie of broccoli, a calorie of steak and a calorie of coke are the same, I'd say you are lost.

Straw man. I never said the foods are the same.

There are many differences in foods and their nutritional content. And there is much more to health than just weight. We need a lot of different nutrients for health. But to lose weight you have to burn all the calories you eat and a few more.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline Sawyer

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 841
Re: Episode #597
« Reply #22 on: December 19, 2016, 10:06:54 AM »
I am very much in favor of their approach, here.  They said from the start that they would address issues, not politics, and that's what they're doing. Presidential appointments are politics, and they are something that, like it or not, the President gets to do.  We could go all-in opposing any one of these candidates and expend a whole lot of energy on defeating one, but in the end Trump's just going to appoint another just as bad.  There will be plenty of opportunities for calls to genuine action, but for now there's really nothing happening but politics.

How one defines 'issues' and 'politics' is rather fuzzy and open to interpretation. The idea that one can wait until an anti science conspiracy theorist actually imposes a policy rather that challenge the campaign, the appointments, and the arguments given, seems naive in the extreme. It also seems inconsistent and illogical in terms of the way the SGU gang might rail against the appointment of an alt med practitioner if he were assigned a position of power. Would the argument then be to wait until fake treatments had been prescribed before objecting? Should we wait for deaths? Of course not. Should one wait for creationists to impose an anti science teaching programme in schools before challenging it? Or should we seek to stop them having power over science education in the first place? Clearly the latter.

I understand that the SGU gang don't want to be biased in terms of political party. That's sensible. But to duck politics altogether is not possible. To ignore politics is itself political. To pretend not to have a stance is to take a stance. It is simply a stance that makes one either a complicit bystander or an irrelevance.

I'm 100% okay with the SGU having a reactive rather than proactive approach to dealing with the intersection of science and politics.  If that is how they think they can represent skepticism in the most honest and interesting way to listeners, so be it.  What is absurd is when the skeptical movement as a whole insists it wants to have actual clout in the political process through representatives, conventional news outlets, or lobbying, and then does a 180 by stating "oh well we don't want to talk these specific political questions just yet, we'll deal with them later."  Okay, then you've just admitted where your priories lie, and they clearly don't involve significant changes to the political process.  One of Dr. Novella's 'sister' websites, ScienceBasedMedicine, seems to understand this, and contributers took the initiative to form a separate organization (the Society for Science Based Medicine) specifically devoted to taking action rather than just writing about current medical topics.  I'm still doubtful that they have the muscle or willpower to deal with the underlying ignorance and cynicism about healthcare in American politics, but they at least decided that sitting on the sidelines wasn't the smartest play.

Again, I'm happy to listen to the podcast with zero mention of Trump for another few months.  But whenever Steve or any other Rogues muses about their disdain for politicians and the need for a more rational political process, I'm going to continue rolling my eyes.

Offline lucek

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 50
Re: Episode #597
« Reply #23 on: December 19, 2016, 10:11:16 AM »
If i remember correctly nasa didnt want to send glen back up. They had a narional hero and a symble and was too risky to give him the 2nd nod. Its like the flying aces durring ww1. They were all over the head lines untill they died

Offline gmalivuk

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2109
    • http://gmalivuk.livejournal.com
Re: Episode #597
« Reply #24 on: December 19, 2016, 11:40:47 AM »

That's only because we eat so much of it. And calories in, calories out, is physics. Conservation of energy. You cannot gain weight unless you eat more calories than you burn; and you cannot lose weight unless you burn more calories than you eat. Anything else is magic.

If you think [that] a calorie of broccoli, a calorie of steak and a calorie of coke are the same, I'd say you are lost.

Straw man. I never said the foods are the same.

There are many differences in foods and their nutritional content. And there is much more to health than just weight. We need a lot of different nutrients for health. But to lose weight you have to burn all the calories you eat and a few more.
You have to burn all the calories you absorb, which depending on a variety of other factors can be different from the number of calories released by burning the food and measuring the heat.

Even when we just focus on caloric balance and weight gain/loss, the kinds of foods you eat can affect the absorption and utilization of calories in more complex ways than might be expected by simply counting calories and keeping track of the average amount of energy various exercise activities require.
The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better...is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.

Offline PatrickG

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 82
Episode #597
« Reply #25 on: December 19, 2016, 11:47:10 AM »
Steve gave an overview of the options for energy storage: from cryogenic storage, hydrogen to batteries. He mentioned that the round-trip energy efficiency for battery storage is 60-70%.

That is not correct. In fact batteries are much better: they have a round-trip energy efficiency of between 80% and 90%!

It is possible to approximate the battery round trip efficiency from the EPA sticker of a electric car. It's quite simple: A Nissan Leaf EV has a usable battery capacity of 22kWh for an EPA range of 73 miles. So it's net efficiency is 30.6 kWh/100 miles. The EPA rates its gross plug-to-wheel efficiency at 34 kWh/100 miles. The ratio between the two is the round trip efficiency: almost 90%.

The success (cost, CO2 Emissions, range) of electric cars very much depends on a high round-trip energy efficiency. There is a big difference between losing just 10% to heat in the battery and charger vs  over30%. Li-Ion batteries are pretty darn good!

This makes batteries such a great option for energy storage vs hydrogen. It's 80%-90%  versus <50%. Only for that reason alone  hydrogen powered cars are a bad idea.


Sent from my iPhone
« Last Edit: December 19, 2016, 11:49:55 AM by PatrickG »

Offline daniel1948

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5164
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Episode #597
« Reply #26 on: December 19, 2016, 11:58:13 AM »

That's only because we eat so much of it. And calories in, calories out, is physics. Conservation of energy. You cannot gain weight unless you eat more calories than you burn; and you cannot lose weight unless you burn more calories than you eat. Anything else is magic.

If you think [that] a calorie of broccoli, a calorie of steak and a calorie of coke are the same, I'd say you are lost.

Straw man. I never said the foods are the same.

There are many differences in foods and their nutritional content. And there is much more to health than just weight. We need a lot of different nutrients for health. But to lose weight you have to burn all the calories you eat and a few more.
You have to burn all the calories you absorb, which depending on a variety of other factors can be different from the number of calories released by burning the food and measuring the heat.

Even when we just focus on caloric balance and weight gain/loss, the kinds of foods you eat can affect the absorption and utilization of calories in more complex ways than might be expected by simply counting calories and keeping track of the average amount of energy various exercise activities require.

I sent an email to the SGU asking about exactly this issue, after a friend of mine argued that absorption and ingestion are different numbers. To my surprise, I got a personal reply from Dr. Novella. His comment was that this is true, but that the difference is small.

Further, I don't think that the medical community is so naive as to count the calories in, for example, cellulose, which some animals can digest but humans cannot. Individuals differ in their basal metabolism, and in their level of exercise, and both of these count in the equation. But you still have to burn the calories you absorb, and any difference between this and the calories you eat is not large enough to make much of a difference.

I believe the woo community has a lot of notions that eating certain foods will prevent you from absorbing the calories, but except for materials we know are not digestible, this idea doesn't fly.

I reject the notion that doctors, as a class, are too stupid or too stubborn to look at all the evidence, including the evidence from nutrition science, and analyze it more accurately than untrained laypersons.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline daniel1948

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5164
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Episode #597
« Reply #27 on: December 19, 2016, 12:11:07 PM »
Steve gave an overview of the options for energy storage: from cryogenic storage, hydrogen to batteries. He mentioned that the round-trip energy efficiency for battery storage is 60-70%.

That is not correct. In fact batteries are much better: they have a round-trip energy efficiency of between 80% and 90%!

It is possible to approximate the battery round trip efficiency from the EPA sticker of a electric car. It's quite simple: A Nissan Leaf EV has a usable battery capacity of 22kWh for an EPA range of 73 miles. So it's net efficiency is 30.6 kWh/100 miles. The EPA rates its gross plug-to-wheel efficiency at 34 kWh/100 miles. The ratio between the two is the round trip efficiency: almost 90%.

The success (cost, CO2 Emissions, range) of electric cars very much depends on a high round-trip energy efficiency. There is a big difference between losing just 10% to heat in the battery and charger vs  over30%. Li-Ion batteries are pretty darn good!

This makes batteries such a great option for energy storage vs hydrogen. It's 80%-90%  versus <50%. Only for that reason alone  hydrogen powered cars are a bad idea.

Agreed.

I have a hydrogen-powered car. Actually, a toy car. It's big enough for a mouse to ride on it, if you had a trained mouse. It uses a small solar array to produce hydrogen by electrolysis in a bi-directional fuel cell. Then you switch the wires and it runs around the floor using the hydrogen. It takes a long time under bright light to make enough H2 to run for a short distance. And it's so weak that it has difficulty on carpet. It really prefers a wood or linoleum floor. Forget trying to go uphill. The fuel cell is very expensive for its power, and I gather that fuel cells have a short life. Of course, you could burn H2 in an internal combustion engine. But H2 is dangerous to handle and store. I think there are safer fuels that could be produced synthetically. Such fuels will remain necessary for aircraft, but for cars in the 200-mile range, I think batteries are the best solution.

Caveat: I'm biased because I love my electric car.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline gmalivuk

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2109
    • http://gmalivuk.livejournal.com
Re: Episode #597
« Reply #28 on: December 19, 2016, 01:24:11 PM »
I reject the notion that doctors, as a class, are too stupid or too stubborn to look at all the evidence, including the evidence from nutrition science, and analyze it more accurately than untrained laypersons.
Given how many other areas of science doctors don't know as much about as they should (according to Steve's own accounts), I'm not sure why you are so confident about their level of understanding of nutrition science, even for doctors whose specialization is far removed from nutrition.
The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better...is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.

Offline daniel1948

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5164
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Episode #597
« Reply #29 on: December 19, 2016, 02:13:22 PM »
I reject the notion that doctors, as a class, are too stupid or too stubborn to look at all the evidence, including the evidence from nutrition science, and analyze it more accurately than untrained laypersons.
Given how many other areas of science doctors don't know as much about as they should (according to Steve's own accounts), I'm not sure why you are so confident about their level of understanding of nutrition science, even for doctors whose specialization is far removed from nutrition.

It's a relative thing: I trust my doctor to be informed about nutritional science far more than someone who has picked out an iconoclast who claims everybody else is full of beans, and insists that that person is THE authority.

I also trust mainstream medical institutions like Mayo Clinic, more than I trust a web site that someone has decided is more authoritative than the consensus of the medical community. As we've learned from the SGU, individual studies are often flawed, leading to people cherry-picking the studies that make their point, and posting them as authoritative. It's necessary to view the entirety of the literature, and there again, medical professionals are more competent to do this than someone just Googling "calories don't matter" and taking the top three hits as Gospel.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

 

personate-rain