Look, the greenhouse effect due to CO2 is known since more than a century. The explanation involves energy levels and orbitals, but your point is like saying "I don't believe the moon orbits the earth: no one has ever observed gravitation".
Yes, exactly that bad.
No one owes you an explanation. Especially if you cannot be arsed to read the wiki. Ignorance is neither a valid nor a legitimate point of view. If you don't believe in the greenhouse effect, I guess you also think the Earth was created 6000 years ago, exactly as described by the holy book of a bunch of primitive goat fuckers.
And I guess you'll accept to hold a live electric cable, because electricity is just a theory?
Sometimes, we do know things. Even quite esoteric ones. For example, we have known that the Earth was not the centre of the universe long before the first rocket left this planet's atmosphere. We also know that microscopic living things that one cannot see cause disease. We have known that matter was made of atoms before we had the first AFM images.
We know the date and location of every eclipse in the solar system for eons to come. We know the Universe is billions of years old. We know a plane design will fly before it has been built. We know the buildings we make will not collapse.
So yes, scientists sometimes know they are right. Mayans did not know anything about orbital mechanics, but they could still predict the positions of planets. They were wrong about the why, but you would not bet against them that there would be no eclipse on such and such day... Or you would lose.
AGW is the same thing. We know it to be true. We might not know all the parameters. All the models may not be perfectly calibrated. Predictions may not be accurate. But they tell us enough that we know. And that we should really do something.
For scientists, good ones anyway, it doesn't matter one wit what people think. Truth is all that matters. And they know they are right.
It is psychologically very hard to go and argue your point with idiots/thoroughly ignorant people when you know what you know because of many years of study and research. This is a big meta-problem in science: as science becomes more and more advanced and complicated, it becomes harder to explain reasonings. Less scientists engage in that, and the public becomes disconnected from research.
And then, once in a while a society-affecting result comes out of the lab. And then of course everyone with a vested interest in the status quo is against you. And scientific personnel is not trained to deal with that.
Yes, I fully expect that the AGW debate is lost, and that we are all fucked. Winning it would require destroying religion and enforcing very high standards in scientific education at school. Never going to happen.
This is interesting. In fact, what you say is true from the point of view of convincing people.
But it is terrible science/reasoning. For one, the CO2 from the exhaust is not what will kill you. Second, the reason increased CO2 in the atmosphere is bad really is the acidification of the oceans, which will likely lead ecosystems to collapse. Also more extreme climate cycles is a bad idea.
So you will convince people. For the wrong reason. And I must confess that for me, this is a horrible thing. Better than all of us dying, but as a scientist, who puts truth above all else, it is truly painful to distort the argument for the sake of winning it.
I guess I am saying that I would rather die and be right than spread misinformation. Sad.
Perhaps I can help you. Beauty exists in structure and order. The universe is amazing and beautiful because it has a structure of which we can catch glimpses. The reason why there is no god is that the most parsimonious structure is the most beautiful. The most economical explanation is the most satisfactory (and due to information-theoretical considerations the most likely).
Intelligent Design quacks are onto something when they give the example if the aboriginal finding a watch and figuring out it has a designer. They are fundamentally wrong in thinking that the designer is right. What the aboriginal recognises is structure, order, logic, sense. Now they may think this implies a creator, but in reality, more beautiful explanations exist in figuring out how the watch came to be without a creator. Humans are really good at picking up patterns.
Of course, in this case, the watch has a creator, but only a proximal creator: the watchmaker came to be without itself being created, and thus the watch needed no god to be. Simply the laws of physics, some randomness, natural selection and History conspired for this watch to be on this beach.
You are an idiot. This correlates with being a libertarian [1].
Now for the science. Science is not about cute images of polar bears. That you think it is shows that you do not understand how science is constructed. Science is not just a collection of facts. It is a collection of theories which can be used to make predictions about future facts.
These theories are put together using logic, observation, and intuition about how the world works. They are made definite using mathematics.
The article says that self-reported conservatives trust science less and less. The original study corrects for all sorts of factors to account for the observation and concludes that indeed, self-reporting as conservative is a good predictor of being distrustful of science. This is not a theory, because it lacks a mechanism. But it is now a well-established observation. At some point, we may understand what makes people "conservative", through studying the functioning of the brain. Then, maybe, we will establish a theory which predicts why "conservatives" should distrust science.
[1] People calling themselves "conservatives" who want to tear down the social order are idiots. Using such phrases as "Liberal science" is also tell-tale.
Those ideas that you cherish (except the right to bear arms) are ideas from the enlightenment, and much precede the invention of modern libertarianism. They were developed by people mostly thinking about the structure of government, and how it could be made to guarantee basic freedoms. This was in opposition to the absolutist systems of the time.
Libertarians, on the other hand are just a bunch of fanatics with the most tenuous grasp on reality.
You seem to conflate conservative and republican as well as liberal and democrat. This is erroneous.
By definition, liberals want to change the established order, whereas conservatives want to keep it. This does not mean that liberals are necessarily right. But you can be certain that any change in the social order which is now accepted as just was pushed by "liberals".
You cannot know whether the current liberal causes are right or wrong. History will judge. However, attributing to conservatives previous changes which came to become not only accepted but obvious is clearly idiotic.
I can't believe this got modded "informative". Fact: neither the D nor the R are "fascists". Fact: central banks are crucial in the running of economies. Fact: libertarians are crazy and the implementation of their policies would, after untold suffering, lead to the emergence of a feudal society.
I have yet to meet a libertarian whose ideas were not repugnant. And yes, believing that people ought to die so that you can have your fantasy is repugnant. Republicans tend to be thugs who live in the 1950s. Libertarians are monsters who live in the 1800s.
Fact: life in the 19th century was horrible for everyone except a minute fraction of the population. And that was not so much because of the state of technology, but rather because of the prevalent moral views and the organisation of society.
No, I don't have a reference for this. Except that as you know, you will lose some of your cells. Also, that is the cord blood was stored, thawed and that you wanted to purify it after 5 years for stem cells, you would get significantly less that if it had been fresh.
But people hope that their cord blood will save them in the case of a leukaemia they will have in their sixties. That will just never work. Also a single cord will never get you enough cells.
You still should donate. The cord blood is a very precious resource for researchers. And it is very unlikely that delaying the cutting of the cord will make any measurable difference.
Sorry, but you have been scammed. You will never have the opportunity to use the cord: the freezer will make it unusable in a couple years. Also, in the rare cases where it would serve, the reality is that a single cord is rarely enough in any case. It is far better to give the cord to a public bank or simply donate it to science.
Researchers need your cord blood: it is an extremely valuable resource to them, and can essentially do no good for you.
No, in fact, your cord blood will be irretrievably damaged after a couple years in the freezer.
There is not a minute chance that putting your cord blood in a private bank will serve any purpose except make the bastards rich. There is none. There is never enough blood that a single cord suffices. The private banks are a scam of epic proportion.
If you want to do good, you should just donate the cord blood to science. It is a valuable resource for people studying stem cells. And these are the people from whom you will eventually benefit: their research will come back to you in the form of better treatments, or perhaps simply better understanding of biology, which will lead to better treatments.
A lot of people prefer that the cord bloods end up in the trash can rather than being used in science. Because they are afraid that researchers will put the cells into mice or something. Which of course is exactly what they do, because it is necessary to understand how stem cells behave in living organisms. And the benefits are enormous for everyone.
TL;DR : public bank if you really want to. Research is a much better use for it at this point.
Not from me, but from a good friend. Need to programme distributed behaviour in swarms of robots with an easy-to-use IDE coupled with a simulator? Need to transparently switch between reality and simulation as well as have access to pre-programmed sensors and robots? Free software ?
The point is that as we learn more and more about the functioning of the economy, I suspect that those parts best left to "the market" will be less and less important (but I might well be wrong). I could very well imagine a planned economy directed by an AI working much better than what we have currently.
Also, some resources are best allocated by central planning, right now. I am not disputing the fact that when in doubt, a free market is a good idea, and further, that capitalism is a good way of implementing markets. In general, I would even trade some inefficiency in the system for a bit of extra freedom.
But I wish people would stop thinking markets are some magic system (the invisible hand invoked as some Holy spirit is tell-tale in that regard). It is just a process for the allocation of resources. Also, they really work like a GA...
Attempts to sabotage the economy. Willingly or through sheer stupidity. With the Tea Party, one cannot really know.
As for 1) I'll leave that to you as an exercise. Hint: Glass-Steagal had not been enacted in the first place out of sheer petty desire to annoy bankers.
No, you deeply misunderstand how markets work. Markets are like a genetic algorithm with no sanity checks. And GAs are the second best algorithm for any problem. Sometimes, the best algorithm is unknown.
But the "market" fails horribly and reliably in a number of well established and understood cases (health care, monopolies of all sorts, long-term planning, any activity with significant externalities). For some of these cases, sanity checks (aka regulations and taxes) are enough. For the other, the solution needs to be planned. Socialised health care works massively better than "free market" health care. Utilities need to be heavily regulated. Big science cannot happen through market forces.
The "market" is not a magic bullet any more than a GA is. There is no magic bullet. Ever. TANSTAAFL. You understand that about central planning, why can't you understand that for market-based approaches?
This is almost too easy. Energy production can easily be planned, and in fact in most of the world, is planned.
Water utilities can be and are planned. When they are not, disaster ensues.
Land development is planned. Try suggesting that cities should get rid of all zoning laws.
Military procurement is planned. It is always better than a private army.
Essential services such as hospitals are frequently planned.
Money supply through central banking is planned.
Initial telecommunication infrastructure was planned.
Large-scale research is planned. The LHC is not the product of market forces, you know.
Roads are planned.
As to why the government may be better than the market? Easy: the market is trying to solve in an unconstrained way an NP problem (efficient market is true if and only if P==NP ; there is actual mathematical proof of that). However, many solutions are not acceptable to society. The government can avoid them, not the market.
After the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, where the economy was basically saved by the intervention (planned) of the government, and in the slow-growth sluggish aftermath caused by the stupid "the markets know" mantra, how can anyone think that markets always know best? were you born this year or put into hibernation those last five?
I think you misunderstand what externalities are. They are like producing negative goods and services. If the cost on society of drilling somewhere is higher than the benefit, then sure, it should be prevented!
If you care about the bottom line, you must consider the global bottom line.
Slashdot Mirror
Look, the greenhouse effect due to CO2 is known since more than a century. The explanation involves energy levels and orbitals, but your point is like saying "I don't believe the moon orbits the earth: no one has ever observed gravitation".
Yes, exactly that bad.
No one owes you an explanation. Especially if you cannot be arsed to read the wiki. Ignorance is neither a valid nor a legitimate point of view. If you don't believe in the greenhouse effect, I guess you also think the Earth was created 6000 years ago, exactly as described by the holy book of a bunch of primitive goat fuckers.
And I guess you'll accept to hold a live electric cable, because electricity is just a theory?
Sometimes, we do know things. Even quite esoteric ones. For example, we have known that the Earth was not the centre of the universe long before the first rocket left this planet's atmosphere. We also know that microscopic living things that one cannot see cause disease. We have known that matter was made of atoms before we had the first AFM images.
We know the date and location of every eclipse in the solar system for eons to come. We know the Universe is billions of years old. We know a plane design will fly before it has been built. We know the buildings we make will not collapse.
So yes, scientists sometimes know they are right. Mayans did not know anything about orbital mechanics, but they could still predict the positions of planets. They were wrong about the why, but you would not bet against them that there would be no eclipse on such and such day... Or you would lose.
AGW is the same thing. We know it to be true. We might not know all the parameters. All the models may not be perfectly calibrated. Predictions may not be accurate. But they tell us enough that we know. And that we should really do something.
For scientists, good ones anyway, it doesn't matter one wit what people think. Truth is all that matters. And they know they are right.
It is psychologically very hard to go and argue your point with idiots/thoroughly ignorant people when you know what you know because of many years of study and research. This is a big meta-problem in science: as science becomes more and more advanced and complicated, it becomes harder to explain reasonings. Less scientists engage in that, and the public becomes disconnected from research.
And then, once in a while a society-affecting result comes out of the lab. And then of course everyone with a vested interest in the status quo is against you. And scientific personnel is not trained to deal with that.
Yes, I fully expect that the AGW debate is lost, and that we are all fucked. Winning it would require destroying religion and enforcing very high standards in scientific education at school. Never going to happen.
This is interesting. In fact, what you say is true from the point of view of convincing people.
But it is terrible science/reasoning. For one, the CO2 from the exhaust is not what will kill you. Second, the reason increased CO2 in the atmosphere is bad really is the acidification of the oceans, which will likely lead ecosystems to collapse. Also more extreme climate cycles is a bad idea.
So you will convince people. For the wrong reason. And I must confess that for me, this is a horrible thing. Better than all of us dying, but as a scientist, who puts truth above all else, it is truly painful to distort the argument for the sake of winning it.
I guess I am saying that I would rather die and be right than spread misinformation. Sad.
To be fair: the more you know, the less likely you are to believe. In ages past, very brilliant minds knew not so much, and belonged to believers.
Also, "minds belonging to individuals" is an expression which assumes dualism. Which is bullshit.
Perhaps I can help you. Beauty exists in structure and order. The universe is amazing and beautiful because it has a structure of which we can catch glimpses. The reason why there is no god is that the most parsimonious structure is the most beautiful. The most economical explanation is the most satisfactory (and due to information-theoretical considerations the most likely).
Intelligent Design quacks are onto something when they give the example if the aboriginal finding a watch and figuring out it has a designer. They are fundamentally wrong in thinking that the designer is right. What the aboriginal recognises is structure, order, logic, sense. Now they may think this implies a creator, but in reality, more beautiful explanations exist in figuring out how the watch came to be without a creator. Humans are really good at picking up patterns.
Of course, in this case, the watch has a creator, but only a proximal creator: the watchmaker came to be without itself being created, and thus the watch needed no god to be. Simply the laws of physics, some randomness, natural selection and History conspired for this watch to be on this beach.
You are an idiot. This correlates with being a libertarian [1].
Now for the science. Science is not about cute images of polar bears. That you think it is shows that you do not understand how science is constructed. Science is not just a collection of facts. It is a collection of theories which can be used to make predictions about future facts.
These theories are put together using logic, observation, and intuition about how the world works. They are made definite using mathematics.
The article says that self-reported conservatives trust science less and less. The original study corrects for all sorts of factors to account for the observation and concludes that indeed, self-reporting as conservative is a good predictor of being distrustful of science. This is not a theory, because it lacks a mechanism. But it is now a well-established observation. At some point, we may understand what makes people "conservative", through studying the functioning of the brain. Then, maybe, we will establish a theory which predicts why "conservatives" should distrust science.
[1] People calling themselves "conservatives" who want to tear down the social order are idiots. Using such phrases as "Liberal science" is also tell-tale.
Those ideas that you cherish (except the right to bear arms) are ideas from the enlightenment, and much precede the invention of modern libertarianism. They were developed by people mostly thinking about the structure of government, and how it could be made to guarantee basic freedoms. This was in opposition to the absolutist systems of the time.
Libertarians, on the other hand are just a bunch of fanatics with the most tenuous grasp on reality.
You seem to conflate conservative and republican as well as liberal and democrat. This is erroneous.
By definition, liberals want to change the established order, whereas conservatives want to keep it. This does not mean that liberals are necessarily right. But you can be certain that any change in the social order which is now accepted as just was pushed by "liberals".
You cannot know whether the current liberal causes are right or wrong. History will judge. However, attributing to conservatives previous changes which came to become not only accepted but obvious is clearly idiotic.
I can't believe this got modded "informative". Fact: neither the D nor the R are "fascists". Fact: central banks are crucial in the running of economies. Fact: libertarians are crazy and the implementation of their policies would, after untold suffering, lead to the emergence of a feudal society.
I have yet to meet a libertarian whose ideas were not repugnant. And yes, believing that people ought to die so that you can have your fantasy is repugnant. Republicans tend to be thugs who live in the 1950s. Libertarians are monsters who live in the 1800s.
Fact: life in the 19th century was horrible for everyone except a minute fraction of the population. And that was not so much because of the state of technology, but rather because of the prevalent moral views and the organisation of society.
No, I don't have a reference for this. Except that as you know, you will lose some of your cells. Also, that is the cord blood was stored, thawed and that you wanted to purify it after 5 years for stem cells, you would get significantly less that if it had been fresh.
But people hope that their cord blood will save them in the case of a leukaemia they will have in their sixties. That will just never work. Also a single cord will never get you enough cells.
In research, you typically need 3-4 ( human ) cord blood to reconstitute a mouse hematopoeitic system. Do you think 1 is enough for a human?
You have been scammed. There is no way that the blood will be usable if you need it, and one cord is almost never enough.
You still should donate. The cord blood is a very precious resource for researchers. And it is very unlikely that delaying the cutting of the cord will make any measurable difference.
This. A thousand times this. People need to know this.
As an alternative to public cord banks, you can donate your cord blood to stem cell researchers who need it.
Sorry, but you have been scammed. You will never have the opportunity to use the cord: the freezer will make it unusable in a couple years. Also, in the rare cases where it would serve, the reality is that a single cord is rarely enough in any case. It is far better to give the cord to a public bank or simply donate it to science.
Researchers need your cord blood: it is an extremely valuable resource to them, and can essentially do no good for you.
No, in fact, your cord blood will be irretrievably damaged after a couple years in the freezer.
There is not a minute chance that putting your cord blood in a private bank will serve any purpose except make the bastards rich. There is none. There is never enough blood that a single cord suffices. The private banks are a scam of epic proportion.
If you want to do good, you should just donate the cord blood to science. It is a valuable resource for people studying stem cells. And these are the people from whom you will eventually benefit: their research will come back to you in the form of better treatments, or perhaps simply better understanding of biology, which will lead to better treatments.
A lot of people prefer that the cord bloods end up in the trash can rather than being used in science. Because they are afraid that researchers will put the cells into mice or something. Which of course is exactly what they do, because it is necessary to understand how stem cells behave in living organisms. And the benefits are enormous for everyone.
TL;DR : public bank if you really want to. Research is a much better use for it at this point.
https://aseba.wikidot.com/
Not from me, but from a good friend. Need to programme distributed behaviour in swarms of robots with an easy-to-use IDE coupled with a simulator? Need to transparently switch between reality and simulation as well as have access to pre-programmed sensors and robots? Free software ?
There you go.
The point is that as we learn more and more about the functioning of the economy, I suspect that those parts best left to "the market" will be less and less important (but I might well be wrong). I could very well imagine a planned economy directed by an AI working much better than what we have currently.
Also, some resources are best allocated by central planning, right now. I am not disputing the fact that when in doubt, a free market is a good idea, and further, that capitalism is a good way of implementing markets. In general, I would even trade some inefficiency in the system for a bit of extra freedom.
But I wish people would stop thinking markets are some magic system (the invisible hand invoked as some Holy spirit is tell-tale in that regard). It is just a process for the allocation of resources. Also, they really work like a GA...
Also: lizardmen.
Attempts to sabotage the economy. Willingly or through sheer stupidity. With the Tea Party, one cannot really know.
As for 1) I'll leave that to you as an exercise. Hint: Glass-Steagal had not been enacted in the first place out of sheer petty desire to annoy bankers.
Post-deregulation bubbles. Also the FED did all it could do in the face of sabotage attempts from a loony congress.
No, you deeply misunderstand how markets work. Markets are like a genetic algorithm with no sanity checks. And GAs are the second best algorithm for any problem. Sometimes, the best algorithm is unknown.
But the "market" fails horribly and reliably in a number of well established and understood cases (health care, monopolies of all sorts, long-term planning, any activity with significant externalities). For some of these cases, sanity checks (aka regulations and taxes) are enough. For the other, the solution needs to be planned. Socialised health care works massively better than "free market" health care. Utilities need to be heavily regulated. Big science cannot happen through market forces.
The "market" is not a magic bullet any more than a GA is. There is no magic bullet. Ever. TANSTAAFL. You understand that about central planning, why can't you understand that for market-based approaches?
This is almost too easy. Energy production can easily be planned, and in fact in most of the world, is planned.
Water utilities can be and are planned. When they are not, disaster ensues.
Land development is planned. Try suggesting that cities should get rid of all zoning laws.
Military procurement is planned. It is always better than a private army.
Essential services such as hospitals are frequently planned.
Money supply through central banking is planned.
Initial telecommunication infrastructure was planned.
Large-scale research is planned. The LHC is not the product of market forces, you know.
Roads are planned.
As to why the government may be better than the market? Easy: the market is trying to solve in an unconstrained way an NP problem (efficient market is true if and only if P==NP ; there is actual mathematical proof of that). However, many solutions are not acceptable to society. The government can avoid them, not the market.
After the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, where the economy was basically saved by the intervention (planned) of the government, and in the slow-growth sluggish aftermath caused by the stupid "the markets know" mantra, how can anyone think that markets always know best? were you born this year or put into hibernation those last five?
I think you misunderstand what externalities are. They are like producing negative goods and services. If the cost on society of drilling somewhere is higher than the benefit, then sure, it should be prevented!
If you care about the bottom line, you must consider the global bottom line.