Best products from r/EverythingScience

> I don't know why we have hope for change anymore.

Because 'green' technologies can now be advocated for effectively on purely economic grounds without relying on concern for climate change. This talk opened my eyes on a wide number of issues. I cannot recommend it enough.

And I'm not normally an optimist, nor am I even a person who actively looks for things to be optimistic about. But Tesla placed 400,000 pre-orders for their Model 3. People are clamoring for EVs, and this is in a country with $2 gas. By 2020 or so EV drivetrains are projected to be cheaper to manufacture than ICE drivetrains. All of these are economic arguments, not "save the environment" arguments. Sure, there is no EV offering right now to replace a Ford F-150. But there will be.

Solar and wind are, at the utility scale, already cheaper than coal, and cheaper in some cases than even natural gas. Even using natural gas cuts the carbon footprint by half in comparison with coal. India just built the world's largest solar plant, and it took only eight months. EVs, batteries, and solar power benefit from exponential curves regarding technology improvement that don't apply equally to ICE vehicles or extraction technologies.

Here are some interesting things on the market already:

1. Electric boats. Per the video, operation costs (if you include servicing cost for a diesel engine) are comparable.
   
2. Electric lawn mowers
   
3. Electric motorcycles with 200 city mile/100 open road range. Sure, the motorcycle isn't as cheap as most ICE offerings right now, and they don't have the range for a cross-country jaunt, but that will come in time.
   
   Subsidies won't last forever, nor should they. EV powertrains and batteries are getting cheaper. The subsidies weren't intended to be perpetual, but to nurture the industry along until the technology improved enough to stand on its own economically. We have to compete against China and other countries who are more serious about sustaining and nurturing the competitive advantage of their own companies.
   
   Anyway, effusive pandering aside, there is plenty to be optimistic about on this front. The biggest thing for me is that these technologies, mainly EVs and solar, can now be advocated for on purely economic grounds. Your audience doesn't have to care one whit about the environment. Tesla, particular the Model S, mainly pushes the driving experience as the thing that sells the car. Same with Zero motorcycles. They don't lead with the enviro angle.

Check out The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada by Marci McDonald. It's nearly a decade old now, but it does a great job of showing how after the fall of the Reform Party and the rise of the CPC, the architects of Canada's political right used the exact same strategists and religious leaders as the American Republican Party to cement themselves as the party of religious and moral authority. From there, any other connections to the Republican Party (anti-intellectualism, climate denialism, dire fear of liberal policies, etc.) just slid right into place.

Living in Saskatchewan, it's pretty obvious that there is a significant rural population in Canada who really likes what they see coming out of the American South, especially when it comes to "religious values".

The book itself came out in April 19, 2016 https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Realists-Elections-Responsive-Government/dp/0691169446

However, the Vox interview was last month. So, the readers of /r/EverythingScience would be better off either reading the book or at least the synopsis/reviews? Sociologists/political scientists are scientists. This book won the

>Winner of the 2017 PROSE Award in Government & Politics, Association of American Publishers

>One of Bloomberg's Best Books of 2016

>One of Choice's Outstanding Academic Titles for 2016

Whatever that means.

I am not a fan of this man, Dr. David A. Grimes, because he links to crap. (Sorry. I do not how to say that more politely.) Let me share some examples.

First link I clicked on was:
>Before Roe v. Wade in 1973, an estimated 200,000 to 1.2 million illegal abortions occurred annually in the U.S.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5524615


I followed that link and found that:
>To be eligible to use PubMed Commons, you must be an author of a publication in PubMed. You will need an invitation to join PubMed Commons and an NCBI account. This is free of charge.

Happy day! (Sorry. I find restriction of information that is in a public comment disingenuous at the best of times.)

Then I looked again at the article I was to read about the national rate of abortion and found the title was:
>Estimates of induced abortion in urban North Carolina.

which, leaving out that it was only urban abortion, was only from NC.

I click on other links. He quotes the Institute of Medicine from a 1975 paper:
>...the Institute of Medicine had concluded that legal abortion improved the health of women.


although the summary, which is all I read, says they "should enable and encourage women who have chosen abortion to obtain it during the first three months of pregnancy."

I know that many would not be pleased to hear that conclusion. Why is he quoting an article form 1975 as the final word anyway? Who has time to read through a 177-page scanned document anyway?

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18521&page=8

So I went to a third link from this statement:
> All major medical and public health organizations today affirm the health benefits of legal abortion; these include ...

Hey! Isn't that a link so I can buy his book?

http://www.amazon.com/Every-Third-Woman-America-Transformed/dp/0990833607/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1421280844&sr=8-1&keywords=grimes+and+brandon

Yup! it is.

TL;DR: You might want to remember this name, Dr. David A. Grimes, in case someone quotes him. That person is not a very deep thinker, because Dr. David A. Grimes does not support in links what he writes. He does blather on though.

Individual members of society working together create political will.

Look at the IPCC report to find the government policies that are well supported by data and evidence and see what's important to you. Organize your friends to lobby congress. Or join a movement already underfoot. I'd recommend https://citizensclimatelobby.org/writing-letters-to-editors-and-congress/. We've already written over 1,000 letters to congress just in the last month.

EDIT: Also, you can choose not to buy a car.

I have read her book The Descent of Women. She makes an interesting case.

If early humans' habitats were the medium to shallow areas of large bodies of water, it would explain a lot and Elaine Morgan had some very interesting perspectives. These are not all of her theories.

Our noses seem to be designed to prevent water from entering it when swimming or diving. Chimps and other primates noses are NOT designed for this.
The hair on our bodies seems to grow in patterns that offer the least amount of drag when swimming.

We have a subcutaneous layer of fat, somewhat similar to other water dwelling mammals.

Women have distinctive breasts while other primates do not. Supposedly this makes it easier for human infants to nurse while in the water with their mother.

Women rarely go bald. Long hair floating around the mother makes it easier for the young to cling to her. Men, not generally the primary caretakers of infants, do not need long hair to support their aquatic children, so they are more likely to go bald than women.

Our exquisite sense of touch in our fingertips enabled early humans to feel the bottom, distinguishing shellfish from rocks by texture.

The skin on our hands and feet are adapted to a partially aquatic lifestyle.

We evolved an upright stance because when chased by predators, we could run into deep water, stand up and wait out the predators on shore.

*Women are generally more highly evolved than men, particularly when it comes to sex. She explains her theories about our placement of our reproductive areas and organs and has theories on why we orgasm the way we do.

It has given me much to think about over the years. [I am a woman]

There's a whole book on this topic: Doing Good Better: How Effective Altruism Can Help You Make a Difference

I agree, although this seems a bit overkill when you can just use sugar-free flavor squirts. I drink water flavored with Mio Tangerine all day at work, which is pretty great.

Awesome.

A great book I read recently on the elements is Periodic Tales

Communicating science can be just as important, and much more difficult than the science itself. You have to capture your audience's attention, avoid jargon as much as possible, and tell a compelling story. There are some great books out there about the subject. Connection is my personal favourite, but Escape from the Ivory Tower, Don't be such a Scientist, and Am I Making Myself Clear are all good reads as well.

I'd recommend The Geek Manifesto to anyone who hasn't read it.

It's pretty short and an easy read. As a scientist I did feel like Henderson was preaching to the choir, but in that sense I agree with the majority of the sentiment conveyed.

https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Structures-Matter-Supergravitation-Unified/dp/1412083877

Chapter 12. First, it is not MY model, I just use the solomonoff induction and this is the model with the fewest assumption that fits very well to the observations, much better then the standard model.

I could explain it in more detail but I have meet enough people of science to know which kind of scientist you most likely belong to. As long as you are this close minded, I stopped caring what people like you think.

If you really want to debunk this theory and please do, find me a mathematical or logical error. Arguments that model X predicts it very will is not an arugment at all, especially under the number of assumptions and constants in the model.

The white guy at the end is John Gurche. He is the artist who made the figures seen in the video. This video was created as a promo for his book, Shaping Humanity about how art is used to help us understand human origins. The original video seen here was put out by Yale University Press. Someone then took it, removed the book promos and reposted it.

> My focus in the podcast was on ethnic diversity. The ethnic diversity results within that meta-analysis

It seems reasonable to me that there might be differences of this sort around - am open to further input in that regard.

Did actually purchase your book a few months back, although I haven't gotten to reading it yet - its still in the to-read pile (also had the podcast downloaded but not yet listened to). Not quite sure how well you focused on the topic of this thread in your book.

Your grandpa was a pretty cool guy. Apparently he also wrote science fiction:

http://books.google.ca/books?isbn=1418435902

http://www.amazon.com/The-Doppelg%C2%BFnger-Brane-Herman-Volberg/dp/1418435899/

Also in case anyone is really interested here's a link to Piot's book, No Time to Lose about his role in the Ebola discovery as well as the AIDS epidemic.
[book] (http://www.amazon.com/No-Time-Lose-Pursuit-Viruses/dp/039306316X)

Read: A Case for Mars

It answers these kind of answers much better and more legitimately than /u/probelike. We don't need to go to the poles to refine fuel, there are techniques where you bring 1/8th of the fuel you need to get back and spend 2 years using a specific chemical process of pulling out a gas from the thin martian atmosphere to get the other 7/8ths. (You can read a more detailed account on the physics and engineering behind that in the book linked in my comment. It also talks about how people determine 'how long it will take to get to mars' which is not a set time, it all depends on how much fuel you want to use.)