Fisheries policy, like the agricultural policy, is all about individual countries trying to protect the jobs of their people. Too many short term politicians pandering to their electorate result in too many short term decisions against the long term sustainability of our fisheries, which we're really going to need come 2050 when the world population hits 9 billion.

Fishermen are still behaving like hunters roaming further and further afield when they can't find fish locally, instead of acting like responsible farmers who have to protect their land if they want it to continue producing food. Except that irresponsible farmers are over-using fertilizers and herb/pesticides which are washing off into the ocean, some of which act like fish hormones decreasing their ability to reproduce, and others create oxygen depleted algal blooms in which fish can't live.

Sometimes I wish I had an orbital ion cannon and a C&C interface to the world. Then we'd see who makes stupid decisions on my watch...

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Given your bullet reply I will do likewise...


I) I agree that culture may influence hypotheses that have a strong influence on popular ideas of the day. When considering your example, it was the church that was the main player on the opposing side, and ideas that go against the church doctrine, well... we all know what happens then. Climate change has similar implications, as it is rooted in politics and lifestyle - it may be influenced by culture. However, the supporting hypotheses are not largely influenced by culture because they are largely scientific in nature and do not have a direct influence on laymen. For example, the ecological hypothesis to which I eluded earlier concerning altitude and species' ranges is not debated on CNN or FOX. It's fairly obvious why. MOST (I'd wager 99%) scientific ideas are similar to this latter example.

a) I can agree with your point somewhat.. I agree that most people (including scientists) are subject to culture and view their world through the influence of it. However, just because this may be true, does not invalidate peer review. This is linked to my former point, if strong contrary data were to arise, it would greatly behoove a scientist to publish those data, not bow to the pressure of culture and hide it. Reviewers would be forced to view the evidence as it stands, in its raw naked truth, regardless of culture or influence - the editors, co-editors, and colleagues of the authors would demand it.
To your point about trends in science, I can also agree, yet climate change has more to do with the pressing nature of the matter then to a trend. This contrasts greatly with your example of Einstein and Newtonian theory. Climate change is "trending" at the moment, because we are forced to confront it - much like we were forced to confront the depletion of the ozone layer, we are confronting the loss of biodiversity in rainforests, the endangered species act, etc.

b) Indeed, I agree with you that it would not necessarily be "bad". However, you questioned if climate change would even be environmental in its effect. With the examples I provided, I hoped to show you that, indeed, it would be. Some ranges would increase, some would decrease, of course. However, as you surely know, evolution of unique taxonomic macroorganisms can take millions upon millions of years. It is not the increasing ranges with which we are concerned, it is the decreasing ones. Once they are gone, biodiversity decreases, even though it may increase for others. The health and environmental ramifications of that I surely do not need to explain.

c1) See my first point (I) - same argument, really.

c2) You're right and that is my fault - I misspoke (mistyped?). I meant that nobody has yet developed any strong evidence to the contrary. However, you have also committed a scientific falsity, which is one never "proves" anything in science. Therefore, a naysayer would never have to 'prove' that climate change is not occurring, but merely present his/her evidence of such to the contrary. He/She would then address the current models and present opposing ones (as many have done). The theory would quickly unravel, as many theories have done (e.g. Clemons vs. Gleason over the forest climax / succession model is a classic ecological theoretical battle that occurred in the early to mid 1900s. Clemons' theory was accepted for decades until a new hypothesis emerged from Gleason. The latter eventually racked up more evidence and is not generally accepted by the scientific community. [one more theory we never heard about in the papers, with practically no cultural influence]).

>> ^Trancecoach:

if it's reported widely abroad, where are the links?
someone needs to tell mr. chomsky, we can access foreign news online.

Apparently, the military was dumping depleted uranium on the civilians over there.
Stay classy, America.


I think he knows about the internet. The point is it wasn't on any major news networks or newspapers...which is should be, it's a very important story. He's commenting on how telling it is that it wasn't reported, the managers of the country and the media know how to handle things like this.

It is also further proof that the crazed antiwar anti-American left wing media doesn't exist...because wouldn't they have jumped all over this to make the war and america looked bad?

if it's reported widely abroad, where are the links?

someone needs to tell mr. chomsky, we can access foreign news online.


Apparently, the military was dumping depleted uranium on the civilians over there.

Stay classy, America.

@GeeSussFreeK

Yes, I understand it's a difficult subject for the layman...hell, I'M a layman when it comes to climate science, but I know how to learn and sift through information to determine what's bullshit. I do my own learning and I don't rely on hearsay. A subject being difficult doesn't excuse terrible logic and belief in misinformation.

How can you remain "cautiously agnostic" after statements like the following? Massive conspiracy of scientists?

"The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries. With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change."


Even the petroleum geologists finally acknowledged it...y'know, the guys who work for the oil industry...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_of_Petroleum_Geologists#Global_warming_controversy

Just because some ozone depleting chemicals have a greenhouse effect doesn't mean that the ozone hole getting better means there can't be global warming. It's that whole if A implies B then B implies A logic people incorrectly use all the time. Also, the ozone hole over the Antarctic is expected to continue for decades, even if it is "getting better". AND, there is an expectation that as the ozone hole in the Antarctic gets better, it will actually increase the speed of warming in that area:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/science/earth/26ozone.html

The point is, "it's complicated" should lead one to "man, I'd better find out what the deal is" not, "man, I'll never understand that so I'm gonna wait for someone else to tell me what the deal is." Nor should it lead people to take small bits of evidence that logically connect to a positive outcome and then assume the outcome for the entire situation will be positive. That's exactly what the problem is with "ozone repair => no global warming" logic.

Ozone-depleting chemicals are constantly being phased out of use where possible (some are used as fire suppressants and are therefore bottled up most of the time, etc). The general public recognizes ozone-depleting chemicals as bad, and there's no political problem with discontinuing them.

On the other hand, there's a political problem with discontinuing the use of oil, so we see lots of misinformation related to climate change. Millions if not billions of people have a direct stake in oil production, refining, distribution, and consumption. That should probably lead you to believe all the controversy is generated as opposed to existing on its own as a result of collected empirical data.

>> ^mgittle:

My housemate was just talking to this Catholic chick tonight who's an administrator for a non-profit that sends missionaries overseas. He made a comment that he'd love to take a cruise to Alaska and see the glaciers before they're gone. She says we can all rest easy...global warming isn't a threat because the ozone layer is repairing itself.
1. The ozone layer problem is over Antarctica, not Alaska.
2. Ozone depletion has to do with UV light and is not significant in relation to global warming.
Fuck I wish I had been there to tell her she's an idiot. This is the problem that allows banks and corporations to do whatever they want. Mass ignorance, no ability to think critically, and willful disregard of facts. Unbelievably frustrating.


Well ozone depleting chemicals are also greenhouse gasses, so they aren't completely unrelated. And the north pole also sees ozone depletion and smaller holes from time to time. Global climatology isn't easy, especially for the layman. With many different political groups struggling for power, you do have to be suspect of a lot of the information out there. I prefer to remain cautiously agnostic on the matter. However I think we can all agree that dumping hundreds of millions of tons of dinosaur wine (even though Mesozoic was such a good year) into the ocean isn't a good idea!

My housemate was just talking to this Catholic chick tonight who's an administrator for a non-profit that sends missionaries overseas. He made a comment that he'd love to take a cruise to Alaska and see the glaciers before they're gone. She says we can all rest easy...global warming isn't a threat because the ozone layer is repairing itself.

1. The ozone layer problem is over Antarctica, not Alaska.
2. Ozone depletion has to do with UV light and is not significant in relation to global warming.

Fuck I wish I had been there to tell her she's an idiot. This is the problem that allows banks and corporations to do whatever they want. Mass ignorance, no ability to think critically, and willful disregard of facts. Unbelievably frustrating.

Being from the maritime provinces I have become in all honestly both annoyed and embarrassed from the seal hunt. I'm annoyed that the fisheries ministers from Newfoundland and Nova Scotia have associated their policies vastly erroneously with those on the northern territories.
#1.The vast amount of people who hunt seals in the maritime provinces are not native people; it's not a native economic issue. (it's a false correlation).
#2.Three Department of fisheries studies in a row proved that seals are a minute factor in th depletion of fish stocks and killing them as an excuse is irrelevant as they are an adaptable mid-level predator.
#3.Within our own models from the department of fisheries we're killing off our top predators faster than we can replace them....and we've increased sea farming as a response. No correlation to science.

So in conclusion the fisheries policies of the maritime provinces are based on myths, propagating thru short term jobs and mascaraeding as science.

>> ^bmacs27:
I'd rather just pick some fixed amount everybody gets for life however, and just hand them the money when they are 18. It doesn't even have to be money right away (to defer the inflation). It could just be stamps that are converted to cash by the doctors when they are reimbursed for services. It's got most of the qualities of the progressive plans. It's egalitarian. It puts money in the pocket of people that need it. Unlike those plans however, it would get the votes from both sides.
Like I said, it isn't that radical. It isn't like the European style systems, but there are models. Like I mentioned, a similar system is quite popular in Singapore (which I wouldn't describe as an entirely backwards society, I could do without the caning, but you know, quit yer litterin'). For whatever reason, however, this debate always gets bogged down in this quagmire of European system or status quo, which I find bunk. I think there are legitimate concerns with the European way of providing health that don't fit neatly with our cultural identity. There would be broad Republican support for a bill that puts consumers in charge of cost control (this video could be cited as evidence). So why not consider that sort of plan? Because it doesn't inch us along the path to single-payer? Political points? What is it? Why isn't it even on the table?


Let me unpack this a bit, and respond separately to policy substance and the politics of the bill.

I'm not sure how a "lump sum" grant would work. Is there a hidden assumption in there that this is to replace their Medicare benefits later in life? Are there new taxes to offset it? Do people get to keep what they don't spend as cash? What happens if you get a serious illness and deplete it before you're 30?

Part of the advantage of the plan DeLong proposes is that most of the cost is borne by the individual themselves. They also have strong incentives to keep themselves healthy, since any money they don't use gets rolled over into their IRA, or if they so choose, returned to them immediately. If they're young and healthy, this means they have a pretty strong push towards saving 15% of their income at all times. If they do get sick, they have an incentive to try to deal with their illness as cheaply as possible, since every dime is out of pocket. If they get seriously ill, and blow through their HSA, they know what they pay is capped at 15% of their yearly income, and everything past that is paid for by the government, so they know they won't go broke.

A lump sum plan seems to lose most of those advantages.

As for politics, what Democrats are proposing now is actually to the right of the bill Republicans offered to Bill Clinton in the 90's. It's more conservative than the Massachusetts Romneycare reforms.

Republican opposition isn't ideological. There isn't a single god damned thing Democrats could do with this bill that would make Republicans vote for it. They win by handing Obama a defeat, period. Any reform that dramatically improves the system that's signed into law by Obama means historically huge credit will be heaped on Democrats in general, and Obama in particular. They will do anything to stop that from happening.

That said, I would have loved to have seen Democrats propose something like what DeLong suggested, just to hear what the Republican anti-reform talking points would've been. Probably they'd just demagogue the mandated 15% contribution to HSA's and call that a "government takeover" of health care. They'd probably still say that all we need to do is tort reform and to "let companies sell insurance across state lines" which would in effect eliminate the states' ability to regulate insurance.

The only bill that would ever get broad Republican support is one introduced by a Republican majority in congress.

Here's a talk by Bill Gates about nuclear power as an energy source. Not about Thorium, but still interesting... I tried to sift it, but it kept giving me an "code is incorrect" and I just don't know enough to fix it:

Boing Boing article: http://www.boingboing.net/2010/02/12/highlights-from-ted-2.html
TED video: http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html?awesm=on.ted.com_89Dt

excerpt from article above:
"A molecule of uranium has a million times more energy than a molecule of coal." He and Nathan "Mosquito Zapper" Myrhvold are backing a nuclear approach. It's called Terrapower, and it's different from a standard nuclear reactor. Instead of burning the 1% of uranium-235 found in natural uranium, this reactor burns the other 99%, called uranium-238. You can use all the leftover waste from today's reactors as fuel. "In terms of fuel this really solves the problem." He showed a photo of depleted waste uranium in steel cylinders at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Kentucky -- the waste at this plant could supply the US energy needs for 200 years (woah!), and filtering seawater for uranium could supply energy for much longer than that.

That was excellent!

I'd like to dedicate this post to my extreme luck at having miraculously been able to survive to my current age without ever falling victim to:

AIDs, nuclear war, terrorism, salmonella, rabies, penis removal by a jealous lover, carpal tunnel syndrome, H1N1, hostage crisis, arson, skin cancer from global warming / ozone layer depletion, nanotechnology attack, killer bee stings, school gun violence, erectile dysfunction, guerrilla insurgents, sex-crazed porn addict serial killers, wrath of God / Muhammed / Shiva / Buddha / Flying Spaghetti Monster, testicular cancer, flesh eating bacteria, sticky pedals or exploding gas tanks in my car, stingrays piercing my heart, earthquakes / tsunamis / hurricanes / tornadoes, cellphone brain tumors, prostate cancer, anal probes (except to prevent prostate cancer), fundamental loss of reality due to playing video games, spontaneous human combustion,
...
..
.

He's not talking about the Haber process only, he's also talking about herbicide usage of products like Monsanto's RoundUp and others. This also ties into soil fertility and top soil depletion, it's not just a case of some arbitrary soil input method, there are many many many other contributing factors.

The Haber process may feed one third of the worlds population today, but it's not a sustainable practice, not the way agribusiness has wastefully adopted it and 'augmented' it with imazapyr and glyphosphate based herbicide products. It's not a common sense choice at all.

You have to look at how fossil fuel dependent modern industrial agricultural production is overall. 7-10 calories of energy input for 1 calorie of output? Retarded.

Small, inefficient 3rd world style farming? I was thinking something more along the lines of small to medium scale, efficient and sustainable farming practices where your energy input is smaller than your energy output.

Also, it's ironic to imply that 'third world' farming techniques are inefficient when many competent farmers throughout India and Africa, and I'm sure elsewhere, have taken huge yield hits after adopting 'modern, first world, farming techniques'.

^MycroftHomlz: Not that I disagree with your general point, nor do I have a solution, but the situation isn't as simple as you make it out to be. Most libraries are free, but most don't have subscriptions to a broad range of scientific journals, and None have archives for all journals. Some people are lucky enough to live near good academic libraries, like those of Harvard, but most people aren't. As cybrbeast pointed out,even online access to most journals is subscription based.
To compound this, even if everyone had access to all journals, they simple would not have the experience and education to understand publications from all fields.
So, "don't be an armchair scientist," you might say. Well, policies based on science affect all of our lives, global warming being a great example, habitat destruction and resource depletion being better ones. The lay masses must vote on these policies or vote on representatives who will shape these policies. When it comes down to it, a relatively uninformed public must follow the recommendations of sources they trust. The sad thing is we, as a people, don't seem to be well enough educated in the sciences to chose trustworthy sources.

>> ^MycroftHomlz:
Have you ever done experimental research and tried to publish something?
I have... it is hard. When you say such and such experiment is crap, it is clearly out of a complete and thorough ignorance. If you are really passionate that an experiment is incorrect then you need to design another experiment to disprove it.
I trust experimental scientist because I believe that science and experiment are our only ways of really knowing something, and that is not to say I am not critical. The point is reading blogs and watching videos is fine but if you want to talk about something with any vague expertise then you need to get off your ass and go to a library and do a literature search. Libraries are free at least the last time I checked and most of them have access to scientific journals.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Richard Heinberg, postcarbon, peak oil' to 'Richard Heinberg, postcarbon, peak oil, fossil fuels, depletion' - edited by calvados

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.