It's a "soft" science: descriptive, but not predictive. There are a bunch of those. That's distinct from "ability to perform an experiment". Cosmologists don't perform experiments, but they make falsifiable predictions about future observations, which makes them a hard science.
what is the capitalist solution for climate change
Making solar cells a better product than natural gas. There's about a trillion dollars to be made there. Making electric cars that are actually better than gas cars. Tesla is worth more than Ford, and sells dozens of cars every week.
How would capitalism have eradicated polio and smallpox, by selling vaccines to anyone who could afford them
Most advances in the world of pharma over the past 30 years have been made by biotech startups.
How would capitalism prevent rain forest from being chopped down
America has largely been reforested over the past 100 years, as better technology has meant less and less land is needed for farming despite growing population.
Sure, but that's not the context of this thread. You want people to change their behavior? Better explain it to them. Saying "you are too dumb to understand, so just do what your told" is the least persuasive approach possible. It is, in fact, exactly the approach most likely to get all funding for climate change research banned during Trump's second term.
Contrast with the talk.origins FAQ. It takes the arguments of creationists seriously, and rebuts them politely, pointing out what faulty assumption makes them seem correct. It has done wonders to actually pursuance people over the years.
Of course science isn't in any way a democracy. Scientific findings don't get voted on.
That's entirely beside my point, of course. You want people to change their behavior because of that science? You need to persuade them.
Also, science is often a democracy, from any talk of "consensus", to the effect on your career if you try to pursue something unfashionable (though hopefully grad students are well informed about that), to the simple fact that science is mostly funded by democratically elected governments. Think democracy had no effect on e.g. embryonic stem cell research?
Also: using moderation or other techniques to avoid having any discussion about a topic? Another great way to fail to persuade anyone to your cause. Which, I will again remind folks, is an unshakable requirement in a democracy.
Hey, if you don't want people to believe you, keep on talking down to them and not taking them seriously. That always works well in democracies. In fact, it's exactly how we got Trump - he talks down to the press and other pseudo-intellectuals, instead of talking down to voters.
There's no bigger oxymoron than "we don't have to explain - we're scientists!"
The primary driver for climate change is the sun. If we're exiting the Quaternary Ice Age after a couple hundred million years (and it sort of looks like we are. starting 10k years ago), it's not because of CO2.
You can blame CO2 (and other "greenhouse" gasses) for the rapidity of climate change if you like, and that's important to us humans. But if the pattern for the past millions of years was holding, rising CO2 would mean temps were falling slowly rather than plummeting. It's not human activity that broke that pattern.
Rather, the police and district attorney's office would never end an investigation at finding out who owns the car.
If you get a ticket in the mail from a red light camera in most cities, it doesn't even matter if you were driving. You must pay. And you can't appeal, or even go to court, because the cities pass laws saying all this is so.
You might ask, doesn't the Constitution guarantee me the right to a jury trail for any criminal matter, or any civil matter worth more than $20? Sure, the Constitution says that, but the laws just say "this is neither a criminal fine nor a civil matter, you just owe us money". Problem solved. A John Roberts would say "it's a tax".
Fortunately the MAFIAA has not yet distorted justice to this degree. Let's hope they don't start giving cities a cut of the action.
This is awesome. This copypasta has been around for may years, but someone has made an effort to keep it somewhat current, politically. Kudos to that troll!
Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!
You can already mill your own receiver, or make one from a shovel, or make one from aluminum cans (the best kind of recycling!). And it's already very illegal to sell them. But there's no Constitution basis to prevent someone from making his own gun.
My point is, climate scientists can legitimately be termed "scientists", but have no expertise on economics or politics, while people who's discipline is economics or politics aren't usually called "scientists".
I think you meant cosmologists, not astronomers? In any case, they make falsifiable numerical predictions - the core of real science. Economists could in theory, but rarely do - the field is still far more descriptive than predictive. Political "science" never does.
I think the point is that they don't require complicated machines or a lot of knowledge to use, just a 3d printer.
Aren't these CAD/CAM files for a milling machine? 3D printed plastic guns are just going to blow up in your hand - you're better off with a "zip gun" that's at least improvised from metal parts (and a Hell of a lot cheaper than a 3D printer!).
I think Amazon has Bab5 as free for Prime members, BTW. IMO, the middle third of that 5-year run was the best SF TV ever made. If you do watch it, make heroic efforts to remain spoiler-free. Unlike Lost, every clue and prophesy is paid off, one way or another - even when there's a change in actor to write around. Half the fun is anticipating how everything will play out.
Capitalism assumes humans are going to be greedy and selfish, and optimizes around that. That will always work better than a system that assumes humans are going to be nice and altruistic.
What kind of scientists are experts on social and government construct, and associated economics? Political scientists?
I hope they wore their white lab coats.
Not sure why this is modded "flamebait", it's a legit point. Climate scientists stay out of politics if they want to retain credibility (as most do). Are these economists, to talk about needed future economic models? We don't usually call economists "scientists", but at least that would be the right discipline.
As summarized, this looks like a naked power grab by somebody, presumably the dictator of a UN member state, looking to nationalize his country's oil industry "for the good of the climate".
Slashdot Mirror
It's a "soft" science: descriptive, but not predictive. There are a bunch of those. That's distinct from "ability to perform an experiment". Cosmologists don't perform experiments, but they make falsifiable predictions about future observations, which makes them a hard science.
what is the capitalist solution for climate change
Making solar cells a better product than natural gas. There's about a trillion dollars to be made there. Making electric cars that are actually better than gas cars. Tesla is worth more than Ford, and sells dozens of cars every week.
How would capitalism have eradicated polio and smallpox, by selling vaccines to anyone who could afford them
Most advances in the world of pharma over the past 30 years have been made by biotech startups.
How would capitalism prevent rain forest from being chopped down
America has largely been reforested over the past 100 years, as better technology has meant less and less land is needed for farming despite growing population.
Bro, do you even history?
Sure, but that's not the context of this thread. You want people to change their behavior? Better explain it to them. Saying "you are too dumb to understand, so just do what your told" is the least persuasive approach possible. It is, in fact, exactly the approach most likely to get all funding for climate change research banned during Trump's second term.
Contrast with the talk.origins FAQ. It takes the arguments of creationists seriously, and rebuts them politely, pointing out what faulty assumption makes them seem correct. It has done wonders to actually pursuance people over the years.
Of course science isn't in any way a democracy. Scientific findings don't get voted on.
That's entirely beside my point, of course. You want people to change their behavior because of that science? You need to persuade them.
Also, science is often a democracy, from any talk of "consensus", to the effect on your career if you try to pursue something unfashionable (though hopefully grad students are well informed about that), to the simple fact that science is mostly funded by democratically elected governments. Think democracy had no effect on e.g. embryonic stem cell research?
we have to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O) to slow down climate change and give us time to adapt
Maybe. How much will it help? How much will it cost to help? How much will it cost if we ignore the problem?
If we can agree to do this, we have a chance to survive.
Survive? Seriously? This sort of shit is where the science of climate change gets ignored in the religious fever of its True Believers.
Also: using moderation or other techniques to avoid having any discussion about a topic? Another great way to fail to persuade anyone to your cause. Which, I will again remind folks, is an unshakable requirement in a democracy.
Ah, typical Slashdot "I didn't read the post, but he's clearly on the wrong side" moderation.
Hey, if you don't want people to believe you, keep on talking down to them and not taking them seriously. That always works well in democracies. In fact, it's exactly how we got Trump - he talks down to the press and other pseudo-intellectuals, instead of talking down to voters.
There's no bigger oxymoron than "we don't have to explain - we're scientists!"
The primary driver for climate change is the sun. If we're exiting the Quaternary Ice Age after a couple hundred million years (and it sort of looks like we are. starting 10k years ago), it's not because of CO2.
You can blame CO2 (and other "greenhouse" gasses) for the rapidity of climate change if you like, and that's important to us humans. But if the pattern for the past millions of years was holding, rising CO2 would mean temps were falling slowly rather than plummeting. It's not human activity that broke that pattern.
The UK doesn't have the concept of salary? Seems unlikely.
You odn't need to race to the bottom, you can just fall there, when you stop climbing.
Rather, the police and district attorney's office would never end an investigation at finding out who owns the car.
If you get a ticket in the mail from a red light camera in most cities, it doesn't even matter if you were driving. You must pay. And you can't appeal, or even go to court, because the cities pass laws saying all this is so.
You might ask, doesn't the Constitution guarantee me the right to a jury trail for any criminal matter, or any civil matter worth more than $20? Sure, the Constitution says that, but the laws just say "this is neither a criminal fine nor a civil matter, you just owe us money". Problem solved. A John Roberts would say "it's a tax".
Fortunately the MAFIAA has not yet distorted justice to this degree. Let's hope they don't start giving cities a cut of the action.
As Jim Sterling said regarding Nintendo copyright shenanigans:
"I'm not saying you should pirate Nintendo ROMs, but you should totally pirate Nintendo ROMs like a particularly plundery pirate."
This is awesome. This copypasta has been around for may years, but someone has made an effort to keep it somewhat current, politically. Kudos to that troll!
Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!
Pure genius.
I imagine B5 fans love them some Hamlet and Midsummer's Night Dream.
'tis true,
'tis true 'tis pity,
And pity 'tis, 'tis true
No, because it's the UN, and most countries are third-world dictatorships.
You can already mill your own receiver, or make one from a shovel, or make one from aluminum cans (the best kind of recycling!). And it's already very illegal to sell them. But there's no Constitution basis to prevent someone from making his own gun.
My point is, climate scientists can legitimately be termed "scientists", but have no expertise on economics or politics, while people who's discipline is economics or politics aren't usually called "scientists".
I think you meant cosmologists, not astronomers? In any case, they make falsifiable numerical predictions - the core of real science. Economists could in theory, but rarely do - the field is still far more descriptive than predictive. Political "science" never does.
I think the point is that they don't require complicated machines or a lot of knowledge to use, just a 3d printer.
Aren't these CAD/CAM files for a milling machine? 3D printed plastic guns are just going to blow up in your hand - you're better off with a "zip gun" that's at least improvised from metal parts (and a Hell of a lot cheaper than a 3D printer!).
You do know that the Royal Society was created in Newton's day, right? And the term "scientist" wasn't around for a couple centuries after that?.
I think Amazon has Bab5 as free for Prime members, BTW. IMO, the middle third of that 5-year run was the best SF TV ever made. If you do watch it, make heroic efforts to remain spoiler-free. Unlike Lost, every clue and prophesy is paid off, one way or another - even when there's a change in actor to write around. Half the fun is anticipating how everything will play out.
Capitalism assumes humans are going to be greedy and selfish, and optimizes around that. That will always work better than a system that assumes humans are going to be nice and altruistic.
They aren't even called "soft sciences". As a general rule, if you don't need to know calculus to work in a field, it's not a "scientific endeavor".
What kind of scientists are experts on social and government construct, and associated economics? Political scientists?
I hope they wore their white lab coats.
Not sure why this is modded "flamebait", it's a legit point. Climate scientists stay out of politics if they want to retain credibility (as most do). Are these economists, to talk about needed future economic models? We don't usually call economists "scientists", but at least that would be the right discipline.
As summarized, this looks like a naked power grab by somebody, presumably the dictator of a UN member state, looking to nationalize his country's oil industry "for the good of the climate".