I suggest the more constructive path of looking up and voting against every NSF grant going to Nebraska (there are only 195 or so). No "hard science" happens in nebraska, and giving them money instead of other states that are better equipped to do science is absolutely wasteful by any citizen-level metric.
Computation and Turing machines and all of that science stuff are just theories. The so called "experts" tell us that these things can sort email, but it's better to trust the people to get about the business of the government.
I wonder if Bush looked into the eyes of Bill Gates and saw his soul?
Maybe if we allow enhanced interrogation methods, we can recover the email?
Ahh, too easy, I could go on for hours but I'll stop now.
Newsweek has an excellent review of the evolution and funding of the climate change denial movement.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek /
It's fine that Dyson encourages scientific skepticism and debate, but in life, we manage risk by taking actions according to best estimates of that risk. If, according to the latest consensus science, the likelihood of serious consequences for human-modulated climate change is, say, 1%, 5%, 10%, 20%, 50%, or 70%, our actions should reflect those likelihoods. The answer is not to do nothing until the likelihood is 98%. Policy should be proportional to risk, and there's a reasonable scientific consensus that human behavior is 70% to 80% likely to be part of the changes currently observed, and there's a higher chance that these changes are going to have some costly effects regardless of cause. It likewise seems reasonable to encourage more alternative fuels research.
Slashdot Mirror
I suggest the more constructive path of looking up and voting against every NSF grant going to Nebraska (there are only 195 or so). No "hard science" happens in nebraska, and giving them money instead of other states that are better equipped to do science is absolutely wasteful by any citizen-level metric.
Computation and Turing machines and all of that science stuff are just theories. The so called "experts" tell us that these things can sort email, but it's better to trust the people to get about the business of the government. I wonder if Bush looked into the eyes of Bill Gates and saw his soul? Maybe if we allow enhanced interrogation methods, we can recover the email? Ahh, too easy, I could go on for hours but I'll stop now.
Newsweek has an excellent review of the evolution and funding of the climate change denial movement. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek /
It's fine that Dyson encourages scientific skepticism and debate, but in life, we manage risk by taking actions according to best estimates of that risk. If, according to the latest consensus science, the likelihood of serious consequences for human-modulated climate change is, say, 1%, 5%, 10%, 20%, 50%, or 70%, our actions should reflect those likelihoods. The answer is not to do nothing until the likelihood is 98%. Policy should be proportional to risk, and there's a reasonable scientific consensus that human behavior is 70% to 80% likely to be part of the changes currently observed, and there's a higher chance that these changes are going to have some costly effects regardless of cause. It likewise seems reasonable to encourage more alternative fuels research.