The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe Forums

The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe => Podcast Episodes => Topic started by: Steven Novella on December 28, 2019, 12:27:40 AM

Title: Episode #755
Post by: Steven Novella on December 28, 2019, 12:27:40 AM
2019 Year End Review
In Memorium
Science or Fiction
Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: Tassie Dave on December 28, 2019, 04:57:58 AM
Steve used my data for the Science or Fiction wrap-up. The last 2 episode results (754 & 755) weren't updated in those figures. They don't change any positions but here is the final result for 2019:

1st: :cara:   Cara    70%   40 Games    28 Wins   12 Losses     3 Solo Wins
2nd: :jay:   Jay    58%   50 Games    29 Wins   21 Losses     1 Solo Win
3rd: :evan:   Evan    54.16%   48 Games    26 Wins   22 Losses     3 Solo Wins
4th: :bob:   Bob    50%   50 Games    25 Wins   25 Losses     3 Solo Wins
5th: :steve:   Steve    25%    4  Games    1  Win    3   Losses     

Rogues swept Steve: 8 Times
Steve swept Rogues: 4 Times

Best winning streak: Jay - 6 Games in a row (745 to 750)
Worst losing streak: Bob - 5 Games in a row (728 to 732)
Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: DevoutCatalyst on December 28, 2019, 11:28:27 AM
Will Cara point out to her friend Joe Rogan the silliness of raw milk claims? Or will she take the Shermer approach of affirming Joe's milken nonsense to keep the thin skinned friendship going?
Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: lonely moa on December 28, 2019, 12:14:10 PM
(ep 754) Adelie is pronounced a de' li.  Stones are the currency in their species in regards to sex.  I have a wee story about that. 

They are lovely birds.


(https://i.imgur.com/qEPGXWz.jpg)
Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: bachfiend on December 28, 2019, 05:15:31 PM
(ep 754) Adelie is pronounced a de' li.  Stones are the currency in their species in regards to sex.  I have a wee story about that. 

They are lovely birds.


(https://i.imgur.com/qEPGXWz.jpg)

It’s an old one, but they can also fly:

https://youtu.be/9dfWzp7rYR4
Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: daniel1948 on December 28, 2019, 06:19:27 PM
I agree with the rogues' assessment that CRISPR is an amazing technology that may some day make it possible to correct genetic illnesses (probably in eggs &/or sperm &/or fertilized eggs rather than in adults) but the rogues' enthusiasm should come with a footnote that this technology will be available to the rich, and perhaps to people with good medical insurance. Probably not for poor folks.

Kudos to the rogues for calling out Trump as a menace to the world, and especially kudos to Cara for mentioning the pustule first.

Also Kudos for finally coming around to what should have been the obvious fact, that a Mars colony in the near term is a pipe dream. (I think it's a pipe dream at any time line, but credit where it's due for dropping their notion that it could be done soon.)

My sister gets regular acupuncture treatments and swears by them. And she gets acupuncture for her dog and swears the dog feels better as well. I hope the charlatan is not actually sticking needles in the poor dog. Any mention of skepticism towards any form of medical woo will send her into a fit. It's not worth trying to educate her. I think she also uses homeopathy. And megavitamins. And she's convinced she has non-celiac gluten sensitivity, which of course is not an actual thing.

I think that the root of climate-change denialism is just money: Fossil fuels have made a lot of people rich, and are continuing to do so. The fossil fuel industries are going to fight tooth and nail and as dirty as they think they must, to keep the cash rolling in
Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: PSXer on December 28, 2019, 06:22:02 PM
The scratch 'n sniff movie idea was also used in '94 for Fox-o-Rama. You bought the scratch and sniff cards as well as Pulfrich 3D glasses (the kind that have one light lens and one dark lens) from 7-11. Then you watched Fox on a certain night. I'm not sure if any of the shows were actually reformatted for 3D, or if the glasses just make certain scenes look 3D.

Here's an article I found on it:
https://www.deseret.com/1994/5/7/19107552/fox-o-rama-can-hardly-be-called-interactive

Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: stands2reason on December 29, 2019, 05:34:58 AM
My sister gets regular acupuncture treatments and swears by them. And she gets acupuncture for her dog and swears the dog feels better as well. I hope the charlatan is not actually sticking needles in the poor dog.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y45oADjAAuQ
Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: 2397 on December 29, 2019, 10:23:43 AM
Pound for pound, the SGU are certainly more entertaining than the Super Bowl.
Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: stands2reason on December 29, 2019, 01:08:14 PM
Vax populi, vax dei.
Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: thelaker on December 29, 2019, 02:01:56 PM
Greta Thunberg got a lot of love from the SGU crew in this episode, but I don’t think her brand of activism is very useful for a number of reasons:

1.  Shrieking “how dare you” is hardly an effective persuasion technique.  That may be great for rallying your base of support, but that also hardens your opposition.
2.  What is her plan?  For example, is she pro nuclear power?  The best I can tell, her platform is forgoing air travel and meat.  How many politicians in democratic governments would be able to keep their jobs if they seriously promoted these kind of restrictive policies to address climate change?
3.  When she complains about stolen dreams, she appears ignorant of human history.  She has the privilege of living in a wealthy country in a time in history where she has the highest life expectancy.  Would she rather live 100, 200+ years ago?  Is there no understanding of how cheap energy has lifted billions of people out of crushing poverty over the last 100 years?
4.  She appears to subscribe to the “we’re all doomed in 10 years” idea.  This might be motivated by the paper from Jim Bendell (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/vbwpdb/the-climate-change-paper-so-depressing-its-sending-people-to-therapy), but this idea has gotten some traction among U.S. activists (e.g AOC).  It would be interesting if the SGU could take a deep dive into this idea.  After hearing apocalyptic claims of various types for much of my life and not seeing them come true, I’m no longer inclined to take them seriously.
Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: lonely moa on December 29, 2019, 03:40:50 PM
Measles in Samoa.

One unvaccinated person returning home from Aotearoa (NZ) infected the islands and caused more than 70 deaths so far.

Lack of vaccination (well under the 90% needed for herd immunity) was due in large part from the DEATHS of two infants being vaccinated.  It was due to two nurses mixing the injections wrongly (they are now in prison) but two infants died.  There might not be a lot of knowledge of medicine among the citizens, but people knew that two children died from their vaccination.

The red flags outside of home were signs to draw attention of roving vaccinators to enter and vaccinate.

Many people live rurally and do not have the facility to hop in the car (which they don't have) and drive to the local chemist (which might not exist in their area) for a free vaccination, Jay. 

They seem to have arrived at the percentage  for herd immunity, but as it takes some weeks for the immune response to activate, measles still occurs. 

Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on December 29, 2019, 03:54:00 PM
Steve used my data for the Science or Fiction wrap-up. The last 2 episode results (754 & 755) weren't updated in those figures. They don't change any positions but here is the final result for 2019:

1st: :cara:   Cara    70%   40 Games    28 Wins   12 Losses     3 Solo Wins
2nd: :jay:   Jay    58%   50 Games    29 Wins   21 Losses     1 Solo Win
3rd: :evan:   Evan    54.16%   48 Games    26 Wins   22 Losses     3 Solo Wins
4th: :bob:   Bob    50%   50 Games    25 Wins   25 Losses     3 Solo Wins
5th: :steve:   Steve    25%    4  Games    1  Win    3   Losses     

Rogues swept Steve: 8 Times
Steve swept Rogues: 4 Times

Best winning streak: Jay - 6 Games in a row (745 to 750)
Worst losing streak: Bob - 5 Games in a row (728 to 732)

Are you the David that Steve referred to as the one who gathered the statistics? If so, congrats, good job! :)

And congrats to the SGU for all that has been achieved during the decade.

I hope that in late December 2029 I will again hear "And until next decade, this is your skeptic's guide to the universe!". ;D
Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: Zec on December 29, 2019, 04:42:41 PM
Kudos for mentioning Greta Thunberg. She did amazing. Has anybody ever seen millions of people protesting for the climate befere? i don't think so. Great job.
Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: bachfiend on December 29, 2019, 05:08:57 PM
Greta Thunberg got a lot of love from the SGU crew in this episode, but I don’t think her brand of activism is very useful for a number of reasons:

1.  Shrieking “how dare you” is hardly an effective persuasion technique.  That may be great for rallying your base of support, but that also hardens your opposition.
2.  What is her plan?  For example, is she pro nuclear power?  The best I can tell, her platform is forgoing air travel and meat.  How many politicians in democratic governments would be able to keep their jobs if they seriously promoted these kind of restrictive policies to address climate change?
3.  When she complains about stolen dreams, she appears ignorant of human history.  She has the privilege of living in a wealthy country in a time in history where she has the highest life expectancy.  Would she rather live 100, 200+ years ago?  Is there no understanding of how cheap energy has lifted billions of people out of crushing poverty over the last 100 years?
4.  She appears to subscribe to the “we’re all doomed in 10 years” idea.  This might be motivated by the paper from Jim Bendell (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/vbwpdb/the-climate-change-paper-so-depressing-its-sending-people-to-therapy), but this idea has gotten some traction among U.S. activists (e.g AOC).  It would be interesting if the SGU could take a deep dive into this idea.  After hearing apocalyptic claims of various types for much of my life and not seeing them come true, I’m no longer inclined to take them seriously.

Well, it’s not that ‘we’re all doomed in 10 years.’  It’s more ‘were all doomed unless we take meaningful action to stabilise atmospheric greenhouse gas levels within the next 10 years’ otherwise the resulting global warming will trigger tipping points, such as an ice-free summer Arctic or melting of the Arctic permafrost and subsequent release of methane, which won’t be reversed easily.

Governments have been talking about and promising to take action for years, decades...and have done little or nothing.  And atmospheric greenhouse gases continue to increase.  Governments seem to be interested in only mouthing the minimum to be re-elected, and nothing more.
Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: daniel1948 on December 29, 2019, 06:02:45 PM
Greta Thunberg [...]

1.  Shrieking “how dare you” is hardly an effective persuasion technique.

Greta does not shriek. If you listened to her you would see that she is calm, but passionate.

I would ask: If you think Greta's methods are bad, what are you doing to raise awareness of and promote solutions to climate change? I have noticed in my many years, including as an anti-nuclear-weapons activist, that people who are active in other ways, and people who are active on other issues, never criticized me for my choice of issues and methods. The people who told me I was "doing it wrong" or that I should focus my activism on a different issue, were never themselves doing a goddamned thing to try to make the world a little bit better place.

The people criticizing Greta are either climate-change deniers, or people making money off of fossil fuels who are angry because they're afraid somebody will make them quit screwing the world.

Greta is raising awareness of the issue, and the world desperately needs that right now. The world needs people like Greta now: People who will raise their voices and do what they can to inspire others to take action. If you think Greta is doing it wrong, I encourage you to create a world-wide movement to push for an end to the burning of fossil fuels.
Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: Tassie Dave on December 29, 2019, 06:48:24 PM
Steve used my data for the Science or Fiction wrap-up. The last 2 episode results (754 & 755) weren't updated in those figures. They don't change any positions but here is the final result for 2019:

1st: :cara:   Cara    70%   40 Games    28 Wins   12 Losses     3 Solo Wins
2nd: :jay:   Jay    58%   50 Games    29 Wins   21 Losses     1 Solo Win
3rd: :evan:   Evan    54.16%   48 Games    26 Wins   22 Losses     3 Solo Wins
4th: :bob:   Bob    50%   50 Games    25 Wins   25 Losses     3 Solo Wins
5th: :steve:   Steve    25%    4  Games    1  Win    3   Losses     

Rogues swept Steve: 8 Times
Steve swept Rogues: 4 Times

Best winning streak: Jay - 6 Games in a row (745 to 750)
Worst losing streak: Bob - 5 Games in a row (728 to 732)

Are you the David that Steve referred to as the one who gathered the statistics? If so, congrats, good job! :)

And congrats to the SGU for all that has been achieved during the decade.

I hope that in late December 2029 I will again hear "And until next decade, this is your skeptic's guide to the universe!". ;D

Thanks  8) This is not the first year I have supplied the data used on the end of year show.
I keep a running tally week-by-week on a spreadsheet on my iPad. So it's not time consuming. I do it in real time as I listen to the show.

One of these days I may release the total stats for the lifetime of SoF  ;) Maybe for Show 1000.

Teaser:  :rebecca: Rebecca is still the lead Rogue @ 67% from 397 Games. 266 Wins 131 Losses
Hint: None of the boys are in the top 2  ;)
Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: thelaker on December 29, 2019, 07:27:36 PM
I would ask: If you think Greta's methods are bad, what are you doing to raise awareness of and promote solutions to climate change?

Are we required to all be activists?  I learned early and often that no one gives a crap about my opinion as an individual, so I do not believe that I have any power to raise awareness and promote solutions.  Given my family and career responsibilities, I don't have much time either.


The people criticizing Greta are either climate-change deniers, or people making money off of fossil fuels who are angry because they're afraid somebody will make them quit screwing the world.

Now this is just lazy thinking.  The fossil fuel industry makes a convenient scapegoat, but once we start talking about actual restrictions that people in the developed world will have to make in their day to day lives to say, make an 80% reduction in fossil fuel emissions in 10 years, you will start to see a lot of argument.  In the lack of any climate denial movement, there would still be tremendous disagreement as to whether, for example, we should build lots more nuclear power plants, or give up air travel or cars, or ban meat as a part of our diet.

There are also world leaders that do take climate change seriously that are critical of Greta:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greta_Thunberg

Following Thunberg's filing of a lawsuit against France, Germany and other countries which failed to meet their Paris Agreement emission reduction targets, Emmanuel Macron said: "such radical positions (as held by Thunberg) antagonise our societies... She should focus on those that are blocking, those that are the furthest... I don't feel like either the French or the German governments are trying to block". French secretary of state for the ecological and inclusive transition Brune Poirson also criticised her, saying that "she doesn't know what solutions she is putting forward", adding that "you can't mobilise with despair, even hate".


Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: mabell_yah on December 29, 2019, 07:48:30 PM
I guess we're not getting a thread for Episode #754. So let me say this:

"The spoice must flow!"
Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: swan on December 29, 2019, 08:48:56 PM
Greta Thunberg got a lot of love from the SGU crew in this episode, but I don’t think her brand of activism is very useful for a number of reasons:

I'll just leave this here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x49P_ZGeWq8
Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: bachfiend on December 29, 2019, 09:00:20 PM
I would ask: If you think Greta's methods are bad, what are you doing to raise awareness of and promote solutions to climate change?

Are we required to all be activists?  I learned early and often that no one gives a crap about my opinion as an individual, so I do not believe that I have any power to raise awareness and promote solutions.  Given my family and career responsibilities, I don't have much time either.


The people criticizing Greta are either climate-change deniers, or people making money off of fossil fuels who are angry because they're afraid somebody will make them quit screwing the world.

Now this is just lazy thinking.  The fossil fuel industry makes a convenient scapegoat, but once we start talking about actual restrictions that people in the developed world will have to make in their day to day lives to say, make an 80% reduction in fossil fuel emissions in 10 years, you will start to see a lot of argument.  In the lack of any climate denial movement, there would still be tremendous disagreement as to whether, for example, we should build lots more nuclear power plants, or give up air travel or cars, or ban meat as a part of our diet.

There are also world leaders that do take climate change seriously that are critical of Greta:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greta_Thunberg

Following Thunberg's filing of a lawsuit against France, Germany and other countries which failed to meet their Paris Agreement emission reduction targets, Emmanuel Macron said: "such radical positions (as held by Thunberg) antagonise our societies... She should focus on those that are blocking, those that are the furthest... I don't feel like either the French or the German governments are trying to block". French secretary of state for the ecological and inclusive transition Brune Poirson also criticised her, saying that "she doesn't know what solutions she is putting forward", adding that "you can't mobilise with despair, even hate".


You don’t have to just build more nuclear power plants, or stop eating meat, or ban private fossil fuel vehicles (I suppose it would be allowable to have an electric vehicle if it was recharged from solar panels?) and air travel.  You could do all 4, and take other actions as well.

It’s not Greta Thunberg’s responsibility to come up with the solutions.  That there are solutions is definite, including catastrophic climate change and collapse of the world economy, resulting in a reduction of fossil fuel consumption, but not by volition.  The Earth has undergone periods of catastrophic climate change, including the end of Permian mass extinction, but life on Earth has survived.  But we might not survive coming catastrophic climate change, or not many of us.
Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: Tassie Dave on December 29, 2019, 09:15:25 PM
Greta Thunberg got a lot of love from the SGU crew in this episode, but I don’t think her brand of activism is very useful for a number of reasons:

I'll just leave this here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x49P_ZGeWq8

I love that  8)

But I know what the right-wing Greta haters here would say about that. They have a stick up their buttholes about the, so-called, "left-wing bias" of the ABC News department and would go off on a rant about that.
Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on December 29, 2019, 11:47:38 PM
Greta Thunberg got a lot of love from the SGU crew in this episode, but I don’t think her brand of activism is very useful for a number of reasons:

1.  Shrieking “how dare you” is hardly an effective persuasion technique.  That may be great for rallying your base of support, but that also hardens your opposition.
2.  What is her plan?  For example, is she pro nuclear power?  The best I can tell, her platform is forgoing air travel and meat.  How many politicians in democratic governments would be able to keep their jobs if they seriously promoted these kind of restrictive policies to address climate change?
3.  When she complains about stolen dreams, she appears ignorant of human history.  She has the privilege of living in a wealthy country in a time in history where she has the highest life expectancy.  Would she rather live 100, 200+ years ago?  Is there no understanding of how cheap energy has lifted billions of people out of crushing poverty over the last 100 years?
4.  She appears to subscribe to the “we’re all doomed in 10 years” idea.  This might be motivated by the paper from Jim Bendell (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/vbwpdb/the-climate-change-paper-so-depressing-its-sending-people-to-therapy), but this idea has gotten some traction among U.S. activists (e.g AOC).  It would be interesting if the SGU could take a deep dive into this idea.  After hearing apocalyptic claims of various types for much of my life and not seeing them come true, I’m no longer inclined to take them seriously.

Greta's PR, not operations.

She seems to have three roles:As for your specific points:

1)  At this point, deniers need to be defeated rather then persuaded.  The science is clear.  Major geographic changes have started. It's really late in the game.
2) PR.  Addressed above. 
3) I'm not sure what to make of this point.  Do you resent what you see as an ungrateful tone?  When I was a kid, it looked progress would continue forever until Star Trek happened.  Climate Change has ended that.  Kids today are going to live in very interesting times. 
4) The media's reporting here is garbage.  They're mixing up the people saying, "doomsday by 2030," with the people saying, "we have ten years until the range of possible outcomes no longer includes any decent ones.'
Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: thelaker on December 30, 2019, 09:14:09 AM
When I was a kid, it looked progress would continue forever until Star Trek happened.  Climate Change has ended that.  Kids today are going to live in very interesting times. 

I don't believe that there was a universal belief when I was a kid that progress would continue to "Star Trek".  I grew up with all sorts of stories/movies imagining a post-nuclear war, apocalyptic future.  This was the topic of at least two emotional classroom group discussions in my years in high school.

This movie was made over 20 years ago discussing how grim the future would be contemporary high school students:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAcNkan6Mwg
Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: 2397 on December 30, 2019, 09:58:49 AM
To be fair, Star Trek itself foresees a grim future for humanity, from the 1990s through WW3 and then some, into the late 21st century. Although they sometimes seem to be the same wars that happen at different times.
Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: daniel1948 on December 30, 2019, 10:08:51 AM
Are we required to all be activists?

No. We're not. But criticizing people who are doing good because, in your opinion, they are "not doing it right" does not paint you in a very good light. Greta is raising awareness, and she's inspiring people to demand action on climate change. She is one teenage girl who is fed up with the world's non-action on a critical issue. I don't know where people get off demanding that she be an expert on public relations, politics, and climate science before opening her mouth to point out what adults today are doing to the future that today's kids will have to live.

If you are concerned about climate change, you will be glad that Greta is raising awareness and inspiring people to demand action. Criticizing her for "not doing it right" is counter-productive unless you yourself are willing to step in and do a better job. If you focus all your attention on the fact that she does not have all the answers you miss the far more important fact that she is inspiring people to demand that politicians take the issue seriously and engage scientists to come up with answers that will work, and then implement them.

It is not Greta's job to have all the answers. She is bringing the issue to the forefront. It is the job of climate scientists to come up with the answers, and it is our job to demand that our political leaders implement those answers.
Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: 2397 on December 30, 2019, 10:20:17 AM
If Thunberg isn't doing enough, it's up to others to do more. And it's not her who needs to be stopped from doing what they're doing, if we want to move closer to a solution.
Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: GodHead on December 30, 2019, 10:55:32 AM
Of course the head of scientific integrity in China was committing massive fraud.

Fraud is China's version of integrity.

Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: lonely moa on December 30, 2019, 01:49:23 PM

Are we required to all be activists? 

I should be more active.  I was in the 60's when I was, by being a citizen of the USA, participating against the Vietnamese struggle for self determination.  Activism against the war was work that was not easy or fun but at least support continued to grow... and we stopped the war.

Maybe I am just old and tired, but I have engaged in mitigation, carbon sequestration from regenerative grazing and tree planting, reduction in my fossil fuel use, and the most effective, having a vasectomy before issue.

I have looked after drillers on the Ice and surveyed the WAIS as a job... but I have contracted to geophysical work for Exxon, BHP and the like in my past life. Probably guilty.
Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: CarbShark on December 30, 2019, 06:34:38 PM
 :steve: Said he thought the "Scratch-and-Sniff" movie was "Hair."

He might be thinking of "Hairspray" (1988) directed by John Waters, but the movie was "Polyester" (1981), filmed in "Oderama," and also directed by John Waters. 

I doubt the rogues saw that movie as kids. John Waters ain't Jim Henson or John Hughes.

His description of the experience, including old socks, was accurate.
Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: Swagomatic on December 30, 2019, 06:45:12 PM
:steve: Said he thought the "Scratch-and-Sniff" movie was "Hair."

He might be thinking of "Hairspray" (1988) directed by John Waters, but the movie was "Polyester" (1981), filmed in "Oderama," and also directed by John Waters. 

I doubt the rogues saw that movie as kids. John Waters ain't Jim Henson or John Hughes.

His description of the experience, including old socks, was accurate.

Yeah, Hair was a late seventies musical directed by Milos Forman, with Treat Williams. I was 20-ish when I saw it. Pretty good flick, but no scratch 'n sniff.  Had to be the John Waters movie.
Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: CarbShark on December 30, 2019, 07:12:49 PM
:steve: Said he thought the "Scratch-and-Sniff" movie was "Hair."

He might be thinking of "Hairspray" (1988) directed by John Waters, but the movie was "Polyester" (1981), filmed in "Oderama," and also directed by John Waters. 

I doubt the rogues saw that movie as kids. John Waters ain't Jim Henson or John Hughes.

His description of the experience, including old socks, was accurate.

Yes, but it was "Polyester," not "Hairspray."
Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: Swagomatic on December 31, 2019, 10:21:02 AM
:steve: Said he thought the "Scratch-and-Sniff" movie was "Hair."

He might be thinking of "Hairspray" (1988) directed by John Waters, but the movie was "Polyester" (1981), filmed in "Oderama," and also directed by John Waters. 

I doubt the rogues saw that movie as kids. John Waters ain't Jim Henson or John Hughes.

His description of the experience, including old socks, was accurate.

Yes, but it was "Polyester," not "Hairspray."

Yeah, Hair was a late seventies musical directed by Milos Forman, with Treat Williams. I was 20-ish when I saw it. Pretty good flick, but no scratch 'n sniff.  Had to be the John Waters movie.

Exactly, Steve confused the titles of "Hair" and "Hairspray," but the Odorama movie was "Polyester," which was by John Waters. Steve is about 5 years younger than me, so he would have been 16 or so at the time - very likely that he would have seen the movie.
Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: Alex Simmons on December 31, 2019, 03:55:19 PM
Many people live rurally and do not have the facility to hop in the car (which they don't have) and drive to the local chemist (which might not exist in their area) for a free vaccination, Jay. 

Listened to that yesterday. That's not what he was saying. He made the point there was a difference between the two scenarios (rural/remote/poor vs city/town/first world) and what he couldn't get his head around was that those who do have the choice of driving in their car and heading to the local pharmacy to get a vaccine, choosing not to.
Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: int_ua on January 21, 2020, 03:30:29 AM
Is this the episode where The Pocket Guide to Pseudoscience was mentioned? Can you please point me where the official page for it is? Searching for it on ZME Science gives no results. Did I misremember the name and searching for the wrong book?
Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: daniel1948 on January 21, 2020, 09:01:23 AM
Is this the episode where The Pocket Guide to Pseudoscience was mentioned? Can you please point me where the official page for it is? Searching for it on ZME Science gives no results. Did I misremember the name and searching for the wrong book?

It's the first result when you google "the pocket guide to pseudoscience."

https://www.scribd.com/document/435877777/The-Pocket-Guide-to-Pseudoscience-by-ZME-Science-2018

You can subscribe or sign up for a 30-day free trial to download the document.
Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: seamas on January 21, 2020, 11:16:01 AM
Quote from: thelaker
Greta Thunberg got a lot of love from the SGU crew in this episode, but I don’t think her brand of activism is very useful for a number of reasons:

1.  Shrieking “how dare you” is hardly an effective persuasion technique. 
Good thing she didn't shriek then, isn't it?

Quote from: thelaker
2.  What is her plan? 
So if someone doesn't have an action on how to put out a house fire they shouldn't bother to report the first and urge the authorities to do something about it???
The suggestion is absurd.

Quote from: thelaker
3.  When she complains about stolen dreams, she appears ignorant of human history. 

Isn't everyone ignorant of human history?
Are you really harping on that phrase?
By your rationale no one should remark or lament anything of their current age because people from previous times had it worse.

Quote from: thelaker
4.  She appears to subscribe to the “we’re all doomed in 10 years” idea. 
She is correct that there are multiple tipping points and the 10-12 year window of a major tipping point is well supported.
Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: thelaker on January 29, 2020, 12:42:27 PM
Quote from: thelaker
2.  What is her plan? 
So if someone doesn't have an action on how to put out a house fire they shouldn't bother to report the first and urge the authorities to do something about it???
The suggestion is absurd.

There have been multiple responses to my original post to the effect that it doesn't matter that Greta doesn't have a plan.

I think this notion is ridiculous.  The main reason for resistance to climate change policies is entirely related to the proposed plans (i.e. the sacrifices that we living in the developed world must make)!!  If we are to take activists seriously, we need to hear the plan!!


Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: 2397 on January 29, 2020, 12:55:36 PM
The plan is don't ignore the science and the scientists.
Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: daniel1948 on January 29, 2020, 07:53:42 PM
Quote from: thelaker
2.  What is her plan? 
So if someone doesn't have an action on how to put out a house fire they shouldn't bother to report the first and urge the authorities to do something about it???
The suggestion is absurd.

There have been multiple responses to my original post to the effect that it doesn't matter that Greta doesn't have a plan.

I think this notion is ridiculous.  The main reason for resistance to climate change policies is entirely related to the proposed plans (i.e. the sacrifices that we living in the developed world must make)!!  If we are to take activists seriously, we need to hear the plan!!

So, you're saying that if someone doesn't have a concrete solution to an approaching disaster, they should just keep quiet? We, the adults of today, are totally fucking the world the next generation will inherit. It is entirely reasonable for young people to protest this.

Question: Does the present generation have the right to consume all the world's resources and leave nothing for the next generation? If the answer is no (which it is!) does the next generation have the responsibility to come up with a "plan" to preserve the environment while allowing the present generation to continue it's wasteful squandering of resources? Hint: The answer to that is No.

We have a responsibility to leave the Earth in as good a condition as it was when we got it. It is our responsibility to figure out how to do that, even if it means we have to return to the standard of living of a hundred years ago. The kids of today do not have the responsibility to figure out how to do that.

Greta's "plan" is to raise public awareness to try to shame the adults into acting like responsible citizens rather than the spoiled brats we are. We consume hundreds of times more resources than our ancestors did, and in a mere century we have nearly exhausted the world's fossil fuels, recklessly dumping the carbon into the atmosphere, and acting as though the world owes us a standard of living hundreds of times higher than anyone ever had before. And the cost of that is we are leaving the next generation bankrupt.

Nobody has any right to criticize Greta for protesting this criminal wastefulness on the grounds that she does not have a detailed plan for how to fix it.
Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: thelaker on January 29, 2020, 09:30:59 PM
even if it means we have to return to the standard of living of a hundred years ago.

You are proving my point.  If "the plan" is to roll back our lifestyle to 100 years ago, there will be no political will to do this!!  Keep howling at the moon.....
Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: 2397 on January 30, 2020, 04:05:44 AM
That's not the plan, the point is if we don't do anything, we'll be far worse off than merely going back 100 years.

And there's plenty we can do, like implementing a carbon fee and dividend to actively entice a shift to less polluting activities. There are a lot of things people can do differently without their lives getting worse for it. The only people who have to lose out are the ones who profit massively off of the escalating destruction of our environment, but they're already wealthy enough that it should be irrelevant to them.
Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: daniel1948 on January 30, 2020, 10:02:57 AM
even if it means we have to return to the standard of living of a hundred years ago.

You are proving my point.  If "the plan" is to roll back our lifestyle to 100 years ago, there will be no political will to do this!!  Keep howling at the moon.....

I did not say that was the plan. I said it's not Greta's responsibility to come up with a plan. It's ours. Your assertion that she should just keep quiet if she does not have a "plan" to turn things around is outrageous. She has as much right to speak out as anyone. And what she is saying is true: We adults are destroying the world she and her contemporaries and future generations will have to live in.

If someone is stealing your car, and you cannot stop them, do you just keep your mouth closed and go back inside your house? Fuck no! You should "STOP THIEF!" at the top of your lungs, and then you pull out your phone and call the police. And if the police are not a pack of dickwads, they don't tell you to be quiet unless you have a "plan" to get your car back, because that's their job, not yours. We are stealing the future from the next generation, and as the victims, it's not their job to figure out how to fix it. It's our job. And we are a total pack of dickwads if we tell Greta to just be quiet unless she has a "plan."
Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: seamas on January 30, 2020, 05:12:34 PM

There have been multiple responses to my original post to the effect that it doesn't matter that Greta doesn't have a plan.

I think this notion is ridiculous. 

That is no surprise at all.

The main reason for resistance to climate change policies is entirely related to the proposed plans (i.e. the sacrifices that we living in the developed world must make)!!  If we are to take activists seriously, we need to hear the plan!!


And there is your lazy cop-out.
Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: seamas on January 30, 2020, 05:13:12 PM
even if it means we have to return to the standard of living of a hundred years ago.

You are proving my point.  If "the plan" is to roll back our lifestyle to 100 years ago,

That is a straw man argument.
Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on January 30, 2020, 05:23:01 PM
This angle isn't really clicking for me.

Even if Greta were an autocrat strongman who runs the whole world, who has a single Five Year Plan to fix everything, then there is still a need for PR.

Whipping up public support for action on an issue is perfectly legitimate.
Title: Re: Episode #755
Post by: thelaker on February 10, 2020, 10:56:08 AM
This angle isn't really clicking for me.

I'm failing to make my point, but maybe this video link will help:

https://youtu.be/1oYQQQ96sLw?t=480

"....once people have read 100 stories about global warming, typically what's missing is 'What can we do about it?  Where is the efficacy?'  In fact, if you do more and more of just more urgent stories, you can actually cause people to tune out, which is what the research on global warming coverage has shown."