You assume that a god always existed. If we have to assume that something always existed, I'd prefer to assume that a quantum fluctuation always existed.
They probably just had the date a little early, give them at least half a decade, look at all the refugees in the middle east right now. Climate change played a big part in triggering the Syrian civil war.
Wow, who said we have to return to 1700s lifestyles to go carbon-neutral? We just have to change what all that stuff runs on, it's not that difficult or expensive.
I don't know why you think zero emissions can't happen, I thought 2100 was a pretty soft goal for it. I figure we'll have zero emissions by 2060.
We can easily have all land transport running on electric power by 2030. Ocean transport can be electric/biofuel or nuclear. Aircraft can run on electric for small planes and biofuel for large ones. Boom, zero emissions.
Solar energy is getting so cheap so fast that the irresponsible "don't worry, the future will solve it" crowd might turn out to be right by accident. And if there is a fusion breakthrough or something even more amazing happens like people not being idiots about fission power, all the better.
I want everyone in the world to bring their standard of living up to mine! Instead of making everyone poor, how about we make everyone rich?
But not if it means decreasing your wealth in any way of course. And I'm sure if they remain in poverty forever, that's not ideal but acceptable, right?
You don't wait for a doctor to be 99.99% sure about the day you will die before accepting any treatment, you trust that they will make a good guess based on limited observations they have.
I encourage all climate denialists to get at least 4, maybe 5-sigma certainty on any cancer diagnosis before taking any action. Cancer treatments are expensive after all, and you should wait until you're really, really, super duper extra sure you have it!
It's a Russian X-37B equivalent. The Americans used the X-37B to plant jammers and/or deorbit drives on the GLONASS constellation, and the Russians are returning the favor;-)
What could you blow the whistle on? That you tend to get more grants or larger grants if your study has a pro AGW message or if you are known to produce that kind of work?
You could blow the whistle on bullshit science. If everyone says fire is cool, you can prove it is hot. Without bullshit science getting through, the politics have very little influence. It would take the cooperation of all parties involved to the detriment of each individual member to cover up bullshit science - and that's if no new outside party gets involved. Science rewards accuracy far more than any outside party could possibly reward bullshit. And the greater the difference between the current best knowledge and the new best knowledge, the greater the reward. Anyone who wants to pervert science with money has the nastiest uphill battle of all time on their hands.
You seem to think science is like economics, that it's just a bunch of educated rough guesses that can't be proved one way or another and there are no consequences for fucking up. That's not how it works, these things are based on facts and hard data and can be proved or disproved, and in some fields there are huge consequences for tiny shortfallings. That's why snake oil is always hiding and on the defensive, and why cigarettes were always known to be harmful. You can fall for disinformation campaigns but mainstream science has never been swayed in the background. Nothing's changed.
Whether an intentional conspiracy or an unintentional effect of UN funding, the result would still be a conspiracy that anyone could blow the whistle on to receive immense fame and fortune. Why have no scientists done this? It's absurd. Anyone who breaks rank would benefit immensely. The UN isn't the King of Climate Research. The fossil fuel industry would be ecstatic to fund anything solid that works toward disproving AGW. Any organization independent of the UN would love to get a piece of that scientific gold rush.
Could you link to this Japanese study, and maybe while you're at it, explain in detail why you trust it over virtually every other climate study that has ever been done, specifically incluing the Koch-funded one?
By the way, asshole, the only way to achieve real cheap space flight is to have commercial space flight, and just like anything that is done before it becomes the thing that everybody can afford, the first years of it are going to be expensive and only affordable by the wealthiest individuals. Just like cars used to be.
Some things will only be cheap when energy is absurdly cheap, due to the amount of energy that is required. Supersonic flight, space flight, running large wind tunnels, heated pools...those kinds of things.
Cars went almost directly from proofs-of-concept puttering around to mass affordability in less than two decades. Although the one-off concepts had been driving around for roughly a century before the first production vehicles were made.
Damn, you're right...a quick and easy solution for the colleges to continue business as usual, and the students who would've had a hard time finding a job before as graduates may have an even harder time finding one as dropouts.
Read the GP's post again. Big government for everyone else is what they want. Everyone but them paying for it is what they want. Big government for themselves interferes with what they want.
Why do you think climate science is so heavily influenced by politics? I'd say the influence is no greater than in the pharmaceutical or food industries. It's there, but it's always possible to pick out the bullshit because influencing the peer review process with money would be incredibly difficult, and to my knowledge has never been successfully done before. This is where the International Conspiracy of Scientists would be required. Every scientist on the planet would have to be paid off to keep their mouth shut, and not blow the lid on the biggest conspiracy in history and receive Nobels and become as revered as Einstein. See also:
Lets say some scientist came out and said there was no AGW and it the world was fine. What would you immediately say about that person? You'd say they were wrong, bought off, crazy, etc. Never mind you've never read their research and don't actually know why they said that. You would assume they were wrong out of hand. And you would immediately take steps to destroy their career, shut them out of the process, etc.
That person would seem pretty crazy just on the gist of their argument which flies directly in the face of decades of established science, but that's not the end of it. I would indeed assume that they're wrong up front, until proven otherwise - then I'd proceed to look at their research and see why they're wrong. Any scientist would do the same. It's not a conspiracy or groupthink. This is just how science works. A strange new idea has to be good enough to stand up to scrutiny and overturn established theories - whether it's right like tectonic plates or heliocentrism were, or wrong like the vast majority of radically different new theories that are largely incompatible with established ones have been.
Now does that mean AGW isn't real and isn't a threat? Absolutely not. It could be every bit as bad as you claim. However, you don't know that and neither does anyone but a few scientists that have studied it deeply. But what they say can't be trusted because you have a knife to their throat.
Nobody has a knife to anyone's throat. A scientist won't get their reputation ruined for publishing results that go against AGW theory. They'd get their reputation ruined for publishing bullshit science, regardless of the field in question. It just so happens that there are a lot of kooks spewing garbage claiming that AGW is fake.
There have been a few upsets in the last few years and nobody was ruined. For example if you were correct, "the pause" would have been plastered over with a thick layer of bullshit after the scientists who found it were ridiculed to death. But instead we find that the heat has gone into the ocean instead of the atmosphere, and denialists are all over it like a puppy with a new toy because the destination of the heat wasn't predicted corrrectly.
Scientists are not stupid. They know what you'll do. They've seen it happen. So IF/WHEN they found such evidence, what makes you think they'd sacrifice everything to tell you something that you wouldn't listen to in the first place?
Because that is what you'd call a scientific breakthrough. Nobel prizes, historical immortality, all that good stuff, and good news for mankind in this case. That is science gold. Why the hell would they put that gold back in the mine?
Slashdot Mirror
You assume that a god always existed. If we have to assume that something always existed, I'd prefer to assume that a quantum fluctuation always existed.
*Earning* money is for the peasants.
It's worth considering that they were all affected by the NSA's sabotaging of NIST standards.
NSA's BULLRUN program
A swig of grog for our mateys who are rotting in the brig! :-(
After Apple CEO Tim Cook publicly called for sodomy
LOLWUT? I don't remember that. What did he say?
"Go forth and sodomize one another, let the santorum flow freely!"
They probably just had the date a little early, give them at least half a decade, look at all the refugees in the middle east right now. Climate change played a big part in triggering the Syrian civil war.
Wow, who said we have to return to 1700s lifestyles to go carbon-neutral? We just have to change what all that stuff runs on, it's not that difficult or expensive.
I don't know why you think zero emissions can't happen, I thought 2100 was a pretty soft goal for it. I figure we'll have zero emissions by 2060.
We can easily have all land transport running on electric power by 2030. Ocean transport can be electric/biofuel or nuclear. Aircraft can run on electric for small planes and biofuel for large ones. Boom, zero emissions.
Solar energy is getting so cheap so fast that the irresponsible "don't worry, the future will solve it" crowd might turn out to be right by accident. And if there is a fusion breakthrough or something even more amazing happens like people not being idiots about fission power, all the better.
It is well-known among medical professionals and law enforcement that Some Dude is the most dangerous man alive :-P
This is something you'd expect of some place like China or worse.
I hope the rogue drone operators get rich from this.
Thank you for squashing innovation in the field of search engines censored by copyright!
I want everyone in the world to bring their standard of living up to mine! Instead of making everyone poor, how about we make everyone rich?
But not if it means decreasing your wealth in any way of course. And I'm sure if they remain in poverty forever, that's not ideal but acceptable, right?
You don't wait for a doctor to be 99.99% sure about the day you will die before accepting any treatment, you trust that they will make a good guess based on limited observations they have.
I encourage all climate denialists to get at least 4, maybe 5-sigma certainty on any cancer diagnosis before taking any action. Cancer treatments are expensive after all, and you should wait until you're really, really, super duper extra sure you have it!
It's a Russian X-37B equivalent. The Americans used the X-37B to plant jammers and/or deorbit drives on the GLONASS constellation, and the Russians are returning the favor ;-)
What could you blow the whistle on? That you tend to get more grants or larger grants if your study has a pro AGW message or if you are known to produce that kind of work?
You could blow the whistle on bullshit science. If everyone says fire is cool, you can prove it is hot. Without bullshit science getting through, the politics have very little influence. It would take the cooperation of all parties involved to the detriment of each individual member to cover up bullshit science - and that's if no new outside party gets involved. Science rewards accuracy far more than any outside party could possibly reward bullshit. And the greater the difference between the current best knowledge and the new best knowledge, the greater the reward. Anyone who wants to pervert science with money has the nastiest uphill battle of all time on their hands.
You seem to think science is like economics, that it's just a bunch of educated rough guesses that can't be proved one way or another and there are no consequences for fucking up. That's not how it works, these things are based on facts and hard data and can be proved or disproved, and in some fields there are huge consequences for tiny shortfallings. That's why snake oil is always hiding and on the defensive, and why cigarettes were always known to be harmful. You can fall for disinformation campaigns but mainstream science has never been swayed in the background. Nothing's changed.
Whether an intentional conspiracy or an unintentional effect of UN funding, the result would still be a conspiracy that anyone could blow the whistle on to receive immense fame and fortune. Why have no scientists done this? It's absurd. Anyone who breaks rank would benefit immensely. The UN isn't the King of Climate Research. The fossil fuel industry would be ecstatic to fund anything solid that works toward disproving AGW. Any organization independent of the UN would love to get a piece of that scientific gold rush.
Could you link to this Japanese study, and maybe while you're at it, explain in detail why you trust it over virtually every other climate study that has ever been done, specifically incluing the Koch-funded one?
By the way, asshole, the only way to achieve real cheap space flight is to have commercial space flight, and just like anything that is done before it becomes the thing that everybody can afford, the first years of it are going to be expensive and only affordable by the wealthiest individuals. Just like cars used to be.
Some things will only be cheap when energy is absurdly cheap, due to the amount of energy that is required. Supersonic flight, space flight, running large wind tunnels, heated pools...those kinds of things.
Cars went almost directly from proofs-of-concept puttering around to mass affordability in less than two decades. Although the one-off concepts had been driving around for roughly a century before the first production vehicles were made.
Tell that to the employers.
Damn, you're right...a quick and easy solution for the colleges to continue business as usual, and the students who would've had a hard time finding a job before as graduates may have an even harder time finding one as dropouts.
+1 Excellent Analogy XD
Read the GP's post again. Big government for everyone else is what they want. Everyone but them paying for it is what they want. Big government for themselves interferes with what they want.
Internally consistent.
Why do you think climate science is so heavily influenced by politics? I'd say the influence is no greater than in the pharmaceutical or food industries. It's there, but it's always possible to pick out the bullshit because influencing the peer review process with money would be incredibly difficult, and to my knowledge has never been successfully done before. This is where the International Conspiracy of Scientists would be required. Every scientist on the planet would have to be paid off to keep their mouth shut, and not blow the lid on the biggest conspiracy in history and receive Nobels and become as revered as Einstein. See also:
http://arstechnica.com/science...
Lets say some scientist came out and said there was no AGW and it the world was fine. What would you immediately say about that person? You'd say they were wrong, bought off, crazy, etc. Never mind you've never read their research and don't actually know why they said that. You would assume they were wrong out of hand. And you would immediately take steps to destroy their career, shut them out of the process, etc.
That person would seem pretty crazy just on the gist of their argument which flies directly in the face of decades of established science, but that's not the end of it. I would indeed assume that they're wrong up front, until proven otherwise - then I'd proceed to look at their research and see why they're wrong. Any scientist would do the same. It's not a conspiracy or groupthink. This is just how science works. A strange new idea has to be good enough to stand up to scrutiny and overturn established theories - whether it's right like tectonic plates or heliocentrism were, or wrong like the vast majority of radically different new theories that are largely incompatible with established ones have been.
Now does that mean AGW isn't real and isn't a threat? Absolutely not. It could be every bit as bad as you claim. However, you don't know that and neither does anyone but a few scientists that have studied it deeply. But what they say can't be trusted because you have a knife to their throat.
Nobody has a knife to anyone's throat. A scientist won't get their reputation ruined for publishing results that go against AGW theory. They'd get their reputation ruined for publishing bullshit science, regardless of the field in question. It just so happens that there are a lot of kooks spewing garbage claiming that AGW is fake.
There have been a few upsets in the last few years and nobody was ruined. For example if you were correct, "the pause" would have been plastered over with a thick layer of bullshit after the scientists who found it were ridiculed to death. But instead we find that the heat has gone into the ocean instead of the atmosphere, and denialists are all over it like a puppy with a new toy because the destination of the heat wasn't predicted corrrectly.
Scientists are not stupid. They know what you'll do. They've seen it happen. So IF/WHEN they found such evidence, what makes you think they'd sacrifice everything to tell you something that you wouldn't listen to in the first place?
Because that is what you'd call a scientific breakthrough. Nobel prizes, historical immortality, all that good stuff, and good news for mankind in this case. That is science gold. Why the hell would they put that gold back in the mine?
Well then have a nap. THEN SURRENDER!
Likewise, it's only class warfare when the lower classes fight back.