5 ms·

Dude, unlike you (I'm pretty sure) back in the day I used to actually _read_ various scientific studies on a regular basis; these were often in top journals, to

Dude, unlike you (I'm pretty sure) back in the day I used to actually _read_ various scientific studies on a regular basis; these were often in top journals, too. And after some years of this I got to where I routinely threw aside those studies, asking myself "How does this kind of crap get published, anyway?" The situation has only gotten worse since then, as far as I can tell. As far as common sense and such goes, I'm getting pretty tired right now of people complaining about plastic pollution in the oceans which "lasts forever", but then in the next breath complaining about the breakdown products of that very plastic being a danger to wildlife. So which is it - "lasts forever" or "breaks down"? It can't be both. Much of this wildlife would probably be far better off if that plastic did indeed last forever; it would be unsightly, of course, but not all that dangerous. Here's something else that stuck in my craw the other day. The author of this article (a "climate scientist") says at one point that "Science isn’t a popularity contest", but earlier had talked about "the consensus" among scientists. But what is such a consensus if not a popularity contest among those scientists? Also, the tone of the article is such that the author might ver well rain down scorn and disdain upon anyone who weighed in here who wasn't a bonafide climate scientist. But they themselves were actually trained in theoretical physics, not climate science. This situation is quite common among climate scientists, BTW - they weren't actually trained in climatology! https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/hot-planet/why-i-wont-debate-science https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/hot-planet/why-i-wont-d... So apparently there's not really that much "common sense" out there at all, from what I gather. At least not on the part of scientists, anyway.

Retric 8y ago
Consensus is not a popularity contest. It's a debate, and just because you reach say 51% does not mean something is a consensus. Second, the opinions of the ill-informed don't count but they sure love to talk. PS: Individual papers are about as important as tweets. On their own they say almost nothing.
- southern_cross 8y ago
  So what is 97% to 99%, then? (The claimed consensus percentage here varies a bit.) BTW, much about the studies which make such claims was laughably amateurish. I've actually read some of them (mostly), but it's been a while now. (There were at least four of them, as I recall.) Have you?
  - Retric 8y ago
    99% can all think X is the most likely case without forming a consensus. It's a question of levels of evidence and reasonable alternatives.
scott_s 8y ago
> So which is it - "lasts forever" or "breaks down"? It can't be both. It is both. Large pieces of plastic become smaller pieces of plastic, all the way down to microscopic pieces of plastic. In that sense, it “breaks down”. But it remains plastic, that is, it does not degrade to constituent parts. In that sense, it does not “break down”, and it does “last forever.”
- southern_cross 8y ago
  Yes, if exposed to the elements it will indeed eventually break down. It's probably going to take a while, though. And AFAIK there's not much to prevent the individual polymers from eventually breaking down, either, although none of this may be particularly good for the environment. There are things out there which will happily eat (digest) that plastic, too.
  - scott_s 8y ago
    The timescales required for plastic to become not plastic are, I believe, that of centuries at least. We have plastic in us, as does just about all living things on this earth, as a result.
    - slededit 8y ago
      "Plastic" isn't a single molecule. Different types have different amounts of decomposition. PLA will break down in human timescales.
titzer 8y ago
Let me explain a little about why you're being downvoted, instead of just piling on. In short, the tone, dismissiveness, and belligerence of your comment is not up to community standards. It is not a positive contribution to discussion here, and from the downvoting I think the rest of the community would appreciate it if you would take a different approach to posting in the future so that we can hopefully preserve a tiny bubble of courteous discourse. > So apparently there's not really that much "common sense" out there at all, from what I gather. At least not on the part of scientists, anyway. You're painting with an incredibly broad brush here. There are literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions of scientists out there. There are thousands of climate scientists alone! Scientists are a diverse bunch. They come from every country in the world, every religion in the world, every gender, height, weight, and sexual orientation. They don't speak with one voice, they don't operate with one voice, and they don't all share the same worldview. Science is an imperfect process but at least it's a shared commitment to open debate and following the facts where they lead. Tarring whole communities with perjoratives like "lacking common sense" is not useful to the discussion. Stop that. > Dude, unlike you (I'm pretty sure) back in the day I used to actually _read_ various scientific studies on a regular basis; these were often in top journals, too. And after some years of this I got to where I routinely threw aside those studies, asking myself "How does this kind of crap get published, anyway?" The situation has only gotten worse since then, as far as I can tell. This part of your comment starts with an insult, then transitions quickly into braggadocio, and then crescendos with derisive dismissiveness. Not helpful. > As far as common sense and such goes, I'm getting pretty tired right now of people complaining about plastic pollution in the oceans which "lasts forever", but then in the next breath complaining about the breakdown products of that very plastic being a danger to wildlife. So which is it - "lasts forever" or "breaks down"? It can't be both. Much of this wildlife would probably be far better off if that plastic did indeed last forever; it would be unsightly, of course, but not all that dangerous. Well, you brag about reading all these studies and then when it comes to arguing you don't actually refer to studies but instead into some kind of Catch 22 which you concocted on your own. Read some actual studies (like this one https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-16510-3_12 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-16510-3_...) and maybe debate their merits instead of trying to catch everybody in some kind of oversimplified "common sense" logic.
peterashford 8y ago
Can't be both? It is both. It lasts forever and the pieces break down into smaller pieces. re: climate scientists - if 99% of scientists believe something to be true then we should believe them unless we have an alternative hypothesis that can't be trivially discounted. The "tone" that scientists take when talking to people has absolutely no relevance at all to the correctness of the science.
- southern_cross 8y ago
  Their tone of "unquestionable authority" doesn't count for much here either, though. I've met plenty of PhD-level folks who were actually pretty clueless overall and didn't really know what they were talking about in the end; some of them were even scientists. Fun fact: Not too far from me is an infamous "green energy" project which turned out to be a massive and expensive failure. A considerable amount of the money lost here was taxpayer dollars, too. An after-the-fact analysis showed that one big reason for the failure was having too many clueless PhD-level types running around making mostly empty promises, and not enough experienced Joe-the-welder types running around who know how things really work. All is not lost, though, because after having shut down and written off the green energy aspects of the project, it's now just a plain old fossil fuel plant which is doing well enough for itself. A very expensive plant, of course, but at least one that actually works.
  - peterashford 8y ago
    All you are doing is just coming up with yet more anecdotes

Retric 8y ago

Consensus is not a popularity contest. It's a debate, and just because you reach say 51% does not mean something is a consensus. Second, the opinions of the ill-informed don't count but they sure love to talk. PS: Individual papers are about as important as tweets. On their own they say almost nothing.

southern_cross 8y ago
So what is 97% to 99%, then? (The claimed consensus percentage here varies a bit.) BTW, much about the studies which make such claims was laughably amateurish. I've actually read some of them (mostly), but it's been a while now. (There were at least four of them, as I recall.) Have you?
- Retric 8y ago
  99% can all think X is the most likely case without forming a consensus. It's a question of levels of evidence and reasonable alternatives.

scott_s 8y ago

> So which is it - "lasts forever" or "breaks down"? It can't be both. It is both. Large pieces of plastic become smaller pieces of plastic, all the way down to microscopic pieces of plastic. In that sense, it “breaks down”. But it remains plastic, that is, it does not degrade to constituent parts. In that sense, it does not “break down”, and it does “last forever.”

southern_cross 8y ago
Yes, if exposed to the elements it will indeed eventually break down. It's probably going to take a while, though. And AFAIK there's not much to prevent the individual polymers from eventually breaking down, either, although none of this may be particularly good for the environment. There are things out there which will happily eat (digest) that plastic, too.
- scott_s 8y ago
  The timescales required for plastic to become not plastic are, I believe, that of centuries at least. We have plastic in us, as does just about all living things on this earth, as a result.
  - slededit 8y ago
    "Plastic" isn't a single molecule. Different types have different amounts of decomposition. PLA will break down in human timescales.

titzer 8y ago

Let me explain a little about why you're being downvoted, instead of just piling on. In short, the tone, dismissiveness, and belligerence of your comment is not up to community standards. It is not a positive contribution to discussion here, and from the downvoting I think the rest of the community would appreciate it if you would take a different approach to posting in the future so that we can hopefully preserve a tiny bubble of courteous discourse. > So apparently there's not really that much "common sense" out there at all, from what I gather. At least not on the part of scientists, anyway. You're painting with an incredibly broad brush here. There are literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions of scientists out there. There are thousands of climate scientists alone! Scientists are a diverse bunch. They come from every country in the world, every religion in the world, every gender, height, weight, and sexual orientation. They don't speak with one voice, they don't operate with one voice, and they don't all share the same worldview. Science is an imperfect process but at least it's a shared commitment to open debate and following the facts where they lead. Tarring whole communities with perjoratives like "lacking common sense" is not useful to the discussion. Stop that. > Dude, unlike you (I'm pretty sure) back in the day I used to actually _read_ various scientific studies on a regular basis; these were often in top journals, too. And after some years of this I got to where I routinely threw aside those studies, asking myself "How does this kind of crap get published, anyway?" The situation has only gotten worse since then, as far as I can tell. This part of your comment starts with an insult, then transitions quickly into braggadocio, and then crescendos with derisive dismissiveness. Not helpful. > As far as common sense and such goes, I'm getting pretty tired right now of people complaining about plastic pollution in the oceans which "lasts forever", but then in the next breath complaining about the breakdown products of that very plastic being a danger to wildlife. So which is it - "lasts forever" or "breaks down"? It can't be both. Much of this wildlife would probably be far better off if that plastic did indeed last forever; it would be unsightly, of course, but not all that dangerous. Well, you brag about reading all these studies and then when it comes to arguing you don't actually refer to studies but instead into some kind of Catch 22 which you concocted on your own. Read some actual studies (like this one https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-16510-3_12 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-16510-3_...) and maybe debate their merits instead of trying to catch everybody in some kind of oversimplified "common sense" logic.

peterashford 8y ago

Can't be both? It is both. It lasts forever and the pieces break down into smaller pieces. re: climate scientists - if 99% of scientists believe something to be true then we should believe them unless we have an alternative hypothesis that can't be trivially discounted. The "tone" that scientists take when talking to people has absolutely no relevance at all to the correctness of the science.

southern_cross 8y ago
Their tone of "unquestionable authority" doesn't count for much here either, though. I've met plenty of PhD-level folks who were actually pretty clueless overall and didn't really know what they were talking about in the end; some of them were even scientists. Fun fact: Not too far from me is an infamous "green energy" project which turned out to be a massive and expensive failure. A considerable amount of the money lost here was taxpayer dollars, too. An after-the-fact analysis showed that one big reason for the failure was having too many clueless PhD-level types running around making mostly empty promises, and not enough experienced Joe-the-welder types running around who know how things really work. All is not lost, though, because after having shut down and written off the green energy aspects of the project, it's now just a plain old fossil fuel plant which is doing well enough for itself. A very expensive plant, of course, but at least one that actually works.
- peterashford 8y ago
  All you are doing is just coming up with yet more anecdotes