My understanding, from an admittedly cursory reading of the material
My understanding is that the every time a scientist has given us an invention with "few harmful side effects", they've usually been wrong. So pretty much any plan they come with up is probably going to suck.
That the earth is 5000 years old, or 6000 years old. In fact, the bible doesn't give a date for any of its events at all. It's really only certain protestant faiths that have the bible as being completely inerrant and the earth as 6000 years old. The rest of us Christians are in it for some good food on Dec 25th and maybe to bomb some muzzies when they get out of line.
The problem with injecting sulfur into the atmosphere is acid rain. Were it not for acid rain, we could use readily available stones of various kinds as a building material and make long lasting, beautiful buildings and homes for ourselves. We could have fresh water and abundant lakes and have plentiful foul.
I'm sorry, but I grew up in the rustbelt and I've seen just how much acid rain really screws up everything, and I really have no desire to make a bad problem that much worse. If we're going to try and monkey with the global temperature, then the answer has to be to come up with a cheap way to get carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.
It's kind of tough for someone in Ohio and Michigan to swallow the pill of higher energy costs and a further reduced lifestyle to save the very port cities that blithly ignored the total social destruction brought about the port cities forcing free trade and international finance down the rest of the nation's throat. I mean, its very hard to care about San Francisco being under 20 feet of water when the people of San Francisco had no problem unload millions of Japanese and Korean cars to the destruction of half of the jobs in the Cleveland, Akron, Detroit, and more. After decades of being told to accept a reduced lifestyle and adjust due to change brought on by the shipping of massive goods by the coast, suddenly the coast wants even further cuts in the interior's way of life to continue? It seems to me that if you look at the map and see Japan, Korea, and half of China underwater, that all looks pretty good if you just got laid off from GM Detroit.
Has the world gotten so twisted that we cannot create a place for kids to hang out online without a bunch of assholes trying to put them under a magnifying glass to sell them something? Why do people expect teenagers to be anything less than jaded when the whole of humanity does nothing but pander to them like objects and crowds them into little spaces.
Some of this is simply laziness. For example, Building a computer interface that allowing real time scaling of screen blocks so that people with visual impairments can read them is not that hard, yet we did not see that in all major OS until the past five years. Web pages that allow screen reading is not a hugely complex, but many have made no effort to use screen reader.
But those things ARE hard. They DO cost money. It's not laziness. I mean, if it were, then you should be able to make the New York Times allow screen reading in a weekend, when I think most people would actually be able to do just the drudge report and even then probably mess it up. Accessibility is expensive.
Why would these business really oppose a treaty that would make life easier for one section of society. Are they afraid we would all rush out, buy some eye patches
Well, a lot of people would rather just not have to do any extra work or shell out any extra money to create products to benefit the disabled. It might be inhuman, but it is easier to just forget about the less fortunate and sorta hope they die off or something rather than cramp your style helping them.
I'm an American too. My advise to my fellow citizens is not to kiss up to foreigners when they knock the country. They would knock the country no matter what we do. Of course they want to chat up their nation and knock ours down a peg to do it. Just don't get caught up into trying to believe that their bitching is true. 95% is a bunch of well, bitching, and there's not a single thing that they bitch about America doing that they have not or would not equally rationalize themselves into their country doing.
So what happens when the King says I'll grant you $200 billion dollars so you can do X and X never happens
Depends on the King, but.. if he were a good King, I'd say he should find a way to kill you. Recipients of subsidies have to deliver, its that simple.
Thus, I agree with your sentiment.
If the government is doling out subsidies, it has to get something back. I have absolutely no problem with the Feds pulling some strings at bailout companies, for example. If AIG didn't want a bunch of Feds crawling around, they shouldn't have gone to them for a bailout.
That said, it's not like planting trees in the US will compensate for the rainforest's loss. Thats like saying poking holes in your body make up for the loss of your lungs.
Planting trees in the USA could compensate for the rainforest loss, if we did indeed plant enough. This would be a massive terraforming project in the Southwestern USA, for sure, but, it certainly could be done.
The original poster wishes he could see North America before the logging industry swept in. Around 30-50 years ago, his intuition would have been rewarded. But, for the last decades, much of the United States has actually been reforested, rather than deforested. The reasons for this are complex and mixed, but some factors include the original mills going out of business in the Northeastern USA, adoption of better forestry practices, a reversion of farmland to homesites - which invariably means planting even more trees, and so on.
Indeed, Americans have been catching something of a break as they have planted so many trees that North America would be a net carbon sink, if they didn't also drive so many cars. This picture changes as all the new trees mature and their carbon uptake decreases. But, the important lesson here is that while Americans might be bad about CO2 emissions, they have, in their own way, also showed how areas can be reforested, that were once barren.
Because you want the private sector to come up with the capital for initial construction and by doing so, assume the risk for construction delays and other problems.
The reason a government has a private sector, isn't ideological, or rather why a private sector works, is sound risk management. If the King wants to build a tower, and screws it up, the King is out the money. If the King goes and says, "I'll tell you what, build whatever you want, but I get a piece of the income", well, the King doesn't have to assume any risk, at all. He makes the barons, if you will, eat the risk and the capital costs, and gets to collect. When you socialize something, you have the government absorb all the risk. Tis much better to let the government work through monopolies, and just collect the money.
Broadband is one of those cases where experience matters more than ideology. Ideologically, we might say we should have no government interference in the broadband market, or the government should provide broadband to everyone, but what really worked is the government giving the carrier a measure of guaranteed returns on their investment in exchange for satisfying some general social obligations. This worked stunningly well in the old electric industry, where state PUCs did regulate rates, for sure, mandated service levels, for sure, but, at the end, the shareholders of the electric company got a nice dividend check every year. Not a growth stock, but a reliable dividend stock, a good service for consumers, a good company to work for in the community, and it was really about as much of a win-win deal as anyone could get until everyone got greedy - consumers and shareholders alike, and screwed it all up with electrical deregulation.
To wit : I really don't have a problem with taxpayer subsidies for rural broadband IF the broadband companies subsequently tie themselves to Public Utilities Commissions for the setting of rates in the way electricity worked in the better and pre-deregulation days. Give the rural carriers the monopoly, have the government set the rates. That provides badly needed service, the government gets its social responsibilities fulfilled, and the carrier owners get a nice dividend check.
This isn't rocket science. But we just have to get rid of this awful grip of capitalism / socialism black and white thinking that has seized our minds and focus instead on historically that which has worked to build our communities.
They are going to try and foist on the world a gussied up FAT, and the question really is, when there's a small army of uber geeks writing free file and open source file systems for Linux, could a gussied up FAT be worth actually licensing? That's one thing that actually sucked me into Linux, is that, you have -so many- choices of file systems available, and these days if it has a file on a device of some kind, Linux can read it.
I don't mean to knock the possibility that some software can command a premium of paying for it, but, I think by its very nature - the smallish scope of the project, the well defined goals, and the diverse range of existing choices... do you really need to pay for a file system? I mean, NTFS is Microsoft's crown jewel file system, and based on my own benchmarking, and gut feel, I think EXT3 is faster, and its free, and if Microsoft can't beat that, why would I even consider a FAT variant, which is worse than NTFS by Microsoft's own admission.
C++ templates parsing boost spirit employee example C++ memberwise assignment AHO Dragon book on Google Books x86-64 assembly calling convention on Linux x86-64 assembly calling convention on Windows 64 is a PITA the feeding habits of the dinosaur that I saw on the Discovery channel computer simulations of comet impacts kinetic energy equations how do photons work in heat propagation multithreaded photon calculating heat transfer simulation how radioactive dating works how to solve exponential equations how did they do this with a slide rule a history of exponents who discovered e the girl on sprout|the girl on xyz|whatever happened to the girl on northern exposure| ---censored---
Scientists are the same as they have always been. Science has always been politicized. It's just now, scientists are delivering a lot of bad news. Viruses are hard and not as likely to be cured. Serious cancer vaccines elude us. There is no magic energy bullet. We're using too much resources and probably screwing up the planet. That's all bad news, and scientists used to bring good news.
So, what do people do? They turn away from the guys that bring bad news and go for the guys that bring good news.
It's just human nature. Everything else is just an excuse.
The whole point of science, to the lay mind, is to improve the human condition. Humans naturally seek to make their lives richer, and easier. By understanding nature, science has been the ticket for that and most people give scientists the pass because they've made the breakthroughs that have given us giant houses, giant cars, giant computers, giant meals and more so.
But...
Now the science message is that giant houses, cars, computers, meals and so on are all bad. Even if you ignore the environmental effects and supposed externalities the left bandies about, the fact is, all fossil fuels are running out. Even inexhaustable coal grades are not what they were. Look at German anthracite production figures.
Sol someone invents nuclear fusion and killer batteries, we're going to go through a period of real and increasing impoverishment as resources dwindle and government inhibitions on energy use and occasional resource wars increase. I mean, yeah, some could say that our lives would be "better" because we'd have fresher air and more birds, but, when you pay double for your utilities, have a smaller, less capable vehicle, and less of them, and live in a smaller house, and have less food and less things because energy and other resources are increasingly expensive, then, its difficult to measure an improvement in life in qualitative turns.
When you start saying, well, you'll be living more morally, by being more in accord with the environment, that's more of a religious thing, and the people are smart enough to sense that. So, sensing that this is becoming a religious time, and science can't deliver the consumer goods, they start buying ALL religious messages.
So is sex, but we do it anyway. It's all just a question if the benefit outweighs the cost. If you look at the cost of STDs and the impact of an ever expanding population upon the human eco-system, the sapping of the human creative spirit, you might actually think sex is bad and war is pretty good.
Let's all ban sex and have a national army of all men.
it's like hearing loud creaking noises and banging and saying "oh, it's just wind" - disregarding the fact that wind isn't capable of producing such noise.
I think the people in New Orleans and Galveston might feel a bit differently!
Are the searches your property, or Googles? Really, if, truly, everything you write on the internet is your content, then you should have the right to revoke the distribution of that content. You can't have strong property rights only when it is convenient, you know.
Originally NBC was owned by the now defunct RCA. NBC was founded essentially to make content so that RCA could sell more Radios and then Televisions and all the equipment needed to create a radio and tv station. So, not only did RCA own the pipe, they had actually owned the -hardware-. Eventually GE would buy RCA in the early 1980s for the sole purpose of getting NBC. They basically kept NBC, closed RCA, but sold the logo to the French. As an Ex-RCA Employee, I still curse Jack Welch but.... in those days, the merger of RCA and GE which should have been seen as troubling was almost irrelevant as both companies were still selling tubes in the age of the transistor and Sony was really stomping up a storm.
Bottom line is, yeah, it will be a big company, but there's a lot of other media and a lot of other competition out there.
[disclosure: I live in the Philly area and, having lost the World Series to the Yankees, the thought of the NBC HQ from NYC to Philly seems like it would be really sweet. They got the team, but we get the TV].
. I want to burn a CD NOW. So how can I figure out what SPECIFIC things I need to learn JUST to burn a CD?
Well, on Ubuntu, you could burn a CD or a DVD by going to the top menu, which looks something like "Burn DVD/CD"... It's a pretty nice application actually, and, UNLIKE Windows 7, it can burn ISOs directly out of the box.
Just like demography will tell you that the average american family has 1.89 children, you won't find that one family with 1.89 children anywhere. And it doesn't fail for that -- that's simply an absurd request.
It's not an absurd request because all I tried to do was apply classical mechanics to a single molecule. If I wanted to know the temperature of a single O2, I should theoretically be able to sense its velocity, convert that number to basically temperature, and that's that.
The thing is, other people tried to do the same kinds of things, way back in the day, and they discovered that classical mechanics breaks down at the tiny levels, in other words, it FAILS. DOESN'T WORK. DOES NOT COMPUTE. YOU NEED A NEW SCIENCE.
But that bridge engineer will tell you it's a pointless exercise, almost as pointless as finding that family with 1.89 children.
Actually its an entirely different activity and back in the day they used to test ship stability by putting weight on it until started to behave badly. This test was done on the Vasa and it failed but they sailed anyway. It's sinking was predictable even then.
We can never be sure at what exact CO2 levels the climate will in actuality go haywire, but we know there is such a level. And in civil engineering we try to be almost an order of magnitude below the limit. Seems sensible for me to do the same with our climate.
And that is my point. We can predict well enough when the bridge will fail. We cannot predict when the climate will fail to any degree of utility.
We need better science on climate because what we have is not good enough. It fails when you ask it the hard questions.
Slashdot Mirror
My understanding, from an admittedly cursory reading of the material
My understanding is that the every time a scientist has given us an invention with "few harmful side effects", they've usually been wrong. So pretty much any plan they come with up is probably going to suck.
That the earth is 5000 years old, or 6000 years old. In fact, the bible doesn't give a date for any of its events at all. It's really only certain protestant faiths that have the bible as being completely inerrant and the earth as 6000 years old. The rest of us Christians are in it for some good food on Dec 25th and maybe to bomb some muzzies when they get out of line.
The problem with injecting sulfur into the atmosphere is acid rain. Were it not for acid rain, we could use readily available stones of various kinds as a building material and make long lasting, beautiful buildings and homes for ourselves. We could have fresh water and abundant lakes and have plentiful foul.
I'm sorry, but I grew up in the rustbelt and I've seen just how much acid rain really screws up everything, and I really have no desire to make a bad problem that much worse. If we're going to try and monkey with the global temperature, then the answer has to be to come up with a cheap way to get carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.
It's kind of tough for someone in Ohio and Michigan to swallow the pill of higher energy costs and a further reduced lifestyle to save the very port cities that blithly ignored the total social destruction brought about the port cities forcing free trade and international finance down the rest of the nation's throat. I mean, its very hard to care about San Francisco being under 20 feet of water when the people of San Francisco had no problem unload millions of Japanese and Korean cars to the destruction of half of the jobs in the Cleveland, Akron, Detroit, and more. After decades of being told to accept a reduced lifestyle and adjust due to change brought on by the shipping of massive goods by the coast, suddenly the coast wants even further cuts in the interior's way of life to continue? It seems to me that if you look at the map and see Japan, Korea, and half of China underwater, that all looks pretty good if you just got laid off from GM Detroit.
Has the world gotten so twisted that we cannot create a place for kids to hang out online without a bunch of assholes trying to put them under a magnifying glass to sell them something? Why do people expect teenagers to be anything less than jaded when the whole of humanity does nothing but pander to them like objects and crowds them into little spaces.
HEY, TEACHERS! LEAVE THEM KIDS ALONE.
Some of this is simply laziness. For example, Building a computer interface that allowing real time scaling of screen blocks so that people with visual impairments can read them is not that hard, yet we did not see that in all major OS until the past five years. Web pages that allow screen reading is not a hugely complex, but many have made no effort to use screen reader.
But those things ARE hard. They DO cost money. It's not laziness. I mean, if it were, then you should be able to make the New York Times allow screen reading in a weekend, when I think most people would actually be able to do just the drudge report and even then probably mess it up. Accessibility is expensive.
Why would these business really oppose a treaty that would make life easier for one section of society. Are they afraid we would all rush out, buy some eye patches
Well, a lot of people would rather just not have to do any extra work or shell out any extra money to create products to benefit the disabled. It might be inhuman, but it is easier to just forget about the less fortunate and sorta hope they die off or something rather than cramp your style helping them.
I'm an american citizen and I do know this.
I'm an American too. My advise to my fellow citizens is not to kiss up to foreigners when they knock the country. They would knock the country no matter what we do. Of course they want to chat up their nation and knock ours down a peg to do it. Just don't get caught up into trying to believe that their bitching is true. 95% is a bunch of well, bitching, and there's not a single thing that they bitch about America doing that they have not or would not equally rationalize themselves into their country doing.
Don’t shock them. They have yet to learn, that the world is not a state of the USA, and that hot dogs are actually no food at all. ^^
Maybe the world has yet to learn that, in fact, it really is a state of the USA, and that Hot Dogs are actually the -ultimate- food.
When will you poor barbarians learn SOMETHING.
So what happens when the King says I'll grant you $200 billion dollars so you can do X and X never happens
Depends on the King, but.. if he were a good King, I'd say he should find a way to kill you. Recipients of subsidies have to deliver, its that simple.
Thus, I agree with your sentiment.
If the government is doling out subsidies, it has to get something back. I have absolutely no problem with the Feds pulling some strings at bailout companies, for example. If AIG didn't want a bunch of Feds crawling around, they shouldn't have gone to them for a bailout.
That said, it's not like planting trees in the US will compensate for the rainforest's loss. Thats like saying poking holes in your body make up for the loss of your lungs.
Planting trees in the USA could compensate for the rainforest loss, if we did indeed plant enough. This would be a massive terraforming project in the Southwestern USA, for sure, but, it certainly could be done.
The original poster wishes he could see North America before the logging industry swept in. Around 30-50 years ago, his intuition would have been rewarded. But, for the last decades, much of the United States has actually been reforested, rather than deforested. The reasons for this are complex and mixed, but some factors include the original mills going out of business in the Northeastern USA, adoption of better forestry practices, a reversion of farmland to homesites - which invariably means planting even more trees, and so on.
Indeed, Americans have been catching something of a break as they have planted so many trees that North America would be a net carbon sink, if they didn't also drive so many cars. This picture changes as all the new trees mature and their carbon uptake decreases. But, the important lesson here is that while Americans might be bad about CO2 emissions, they have, in their own way, also showed how areas can be reforested, that were once barren.
Why subsidize when you can own instead
Because you want the private sector to come up with the capital for initial construction and by doing so, assume the risk for construction delays and other problems.
The reason a government has a private sector, isn't ideological, or rather why a private sector works, is sound risk management. If the King wants to build a tower, and screws it up, the King is out the money. If the King goes and says, "I'll tell you what, build whatever you want, but I get a piece of the income", well, the King doesn't have to assume any risk, at all. He makes the barons, if you will, eat the risk and the capital costs, and gets to collect. When you socialize something, you have the government absorb all the risk. Tis much better to let the government work through monopolies, and just collect the money.
It works well for me. My natural gas + electricity bill dropped about 10% when I switched companie
There's a looming reliability problem in the works.
Broadband is one of those cases where experience matters more than ideology. Ideologically, we might say we should have no government interference in the broadband market, or the government should provide broadband to everyone, but what really worked is the government giving the carrier a measure of guaranteed returns on their investment in exchange for satisfying some general social obligations. This worked stunningly well in the old electric industry, where state PUCs did regulate rates, for sure, mandated service levels, for sure, but, at the end, the shareholders of the electric company got a nice dividend check every year. Not a growth stock, but a reliable dividend stock, a good service for consumers, a good company to work for in the community, and it was really about as much of a win-win deal as anyone could get until everyone got greedy - consumers and shareholders alike, and screwed it all up with electrical deregulation.
To wit : I really don't have a problem with taxpayer subsidies for rural broadband IF the broadband companies subsequently tie themselves to Public Utilities Commissions for the setting of rates in the way electricity worked in the better and pre-deregulation days. Give the rural carriers the monopoly, have the government set the rates. That provides badly needed service, the government gets its social responsibilities fulfilled, and the carrier owners get a nice dividend check.
This isn't rocket science. But we just have to get rid of this awful grip of capitalism / socialism black and white thinking that has seized our minds and focus instead on historically that which has worked to build our communities.
They are going to try and foist on the world a gussied up FAT, and the question really is, when there's a small army of uber geeks writing free file and open source file systems for Linux, could a gussied up FAT be worth actually licensing? That's one thing that actually sucked me into Linux, is that, you have -so many- choices of file systems available, and these days if it has a file on a device of some kind, Linux can read it.
I don't mean to knock the possibility that some software can command a premium of paying for it, but, I think by its very nature - the smallish scope of the project, the well defined goals, and the diverse range of existing choices... do you really need to pay for a file system? I mean, NTFS is Microsoft's crown jewel file system, and based on my own benchmarking, and gut feel, I think EXT3 is faster, and its free, and if Microsoft can't beat that, why would I even consider a FAT variant, which is worse than NTFS by Microsoft's own admission.
C++ templates parsing
boost spirit employee example
C++ memberwise assignment
AHO Dragon book on Google Books
x86-64 assembly calling convention on Linux
x86-64 assembly calling convention on Windows 64 is a PITA
the feeding habits of the dinosaur that I saw on the Discovery channel
computer simulations of comet impacts
kinetic energy equations
how do photons work in heat propagation
multithreaded photon calculating heat transfer simulation
how radioactive dating works
how to solve exponential equations
how did they do this with a slide rule
a history of exponents who discovered e
the girl on sprout|the girl on xyz|whatever happened to the girl on northern exposure|
---censored---
Scientists are the same as they have always been. Science has always been politicized. It's just now, scientists are delivering a lot of bad news. Viruses are hard and not as likely to be cured. Serious cancer vaccines elude us. There is no magic energy bullet. We're using too much resources and probably screwing up the planet. That's all bad news, and scientists used to bring good news.
So, what do people do? They turn away from the guys that bring bad news and go for the guys that bring good news.
It's just human nature. Everything else is just an excuse.
The whole point of science, to the lay mind, is to improve the human condition. Humans naturally seek to make their lives richer, and easier. By understanding nature, science has been the ticket for that and most people give scientists the pass because they've made the breakthroughs that have given us giant houses, giant cars, giant computers, giant meals and more so.
But...
Now the science message is that giant houses, cars, computers, meals and so on are all bad. Even if you ignore the environmental effects and supposed externalities the left bandies about, the fact is, all fossil fuels are running out. Even inexhaustable coal grades are not what they were. Look at German anthracite production figures.
Sol someone invents nuclear fusion and killer batteries, we're going to go through a period of real and increasing impoverishment as resources dwindle and government inhibitions on energy use and occasional resource wars increase. I mean, yeah, some could say that our lives would be "better" because we'd have fresher air and more birds, but, when you pay double for your utilities, have a smaller, less capable vehicle, and less of them, and live in a smaller house, and have less food and less things because energy and other resources are increasingly expensive, then, its difficult to measure an improvement in life in qualitative turns.
When you start saying, well, you'll be living more morally, by being more in accord with the environment, that's more of a religious thing, and the people are smart enough to sense that. So, sensing that this is becoming a religious time, and science can't deliver the consumer goods, they start buying ALL religious messages.
War is foolish.
So is sex, but we do it anyway. It's all just a question if the benefit outweighs the cost. If you look at the cost of STDs and the impact of an ever expanding population upon the human eco-system, the sapping of the human creative spirit, you might actually think sex is bad and war is pretty good.
Let's all ban sex and have a national army of all men.
it's like hearing loud creaking noises and banging and saying "oh, it's just wind" - disregarding the fact that wind isn't capable of producing such noise.
I think the people in New Orleans and Galveston might feel a bit differently!
Are the searches your property, or Googles? Really, if, truly, everything you write on the internet is your content, then you should have the right to revoke the distribution of that content. You can't have strong property rights only when it is convenient, you know.
Originally NBC was owned by the now defunct RCA. NBC was founded essentially to make content so that RCA could sell more Radios and then Televisions and all the equipment needed to create a radio and tv station. So, not only did RCA own the pipe, they had actually owned the -hardware-. Eventually GE would buy RCA in the early 1980s for the sole purpose of getting NBC. They basically kept NBC, closed RCA, but sold the logo to the French. As an Ex-RCA Employee, I still curse Jack Welch but.... in those days, the merger of RCA and GE which should have been seen as troubling was almost irrelevant as both companies were still selling tubes in the age of the transistor and Sony was really stomping up a storm.
Bottom line is, yeah, it will be a big company, but there's a lot of other media and a lot of other competition out there.
[disclosure: I live in the Philly area and, having lost the World Series to the Yankees, the thought of the NBC HQ from NYC to Philly seems like it would be really sweet. They got the team, but we get the TV].
. I want to burn a CD NOW. So how can I figure out what SPECIFIC things I need to learn JUST to burn a CD?
Well, on Ubuntu, you could burn a CD or a DVD by going to the top menu, which looks something like "Burn DVD/CD"... It's a pretty nice application actually, and, UNLIKE Windows 7, it can burn ISOs directly out of the box.
Just like demography will tell you that the average american family has 1.89 children, you won't find that one family with 1.89 children anywhere. And it doesn't fail for that -- that's simply an absurd request.
It's not an absurd request because all I tried to do was apply classical mechanics to a single molecule. If I wanted to know the temperature of a single O2, I should theoretically be able to sense its velocity, convert that number to basically temperature, and that's that.
The thing is, other people tried to do the same kinds of things, way back in the day, and they discovered that classical mechanics breaks down at the tiny levels, in other words, it FAILS. DOESN'T WORK. DOES NOT COMPUTE. YOU NEED A NEW SCIENCE.
But that bridge engineer will tell you it's a pointless exercise, almost as pointless as finding that family with 1.89 children.
Actually its an entirely different activity and back in the day they used to test ship stability by putting weight on it until started to behave badly. This test was done on the Vasa and it failed but they sailed anyway. It's sinking was predictable even then.
We can never be sure at what exact CO2 levels the climate will in actuality go haywire, but we know there is such a level. And in civil engineering we try to be almost an order of magnitude below the limit. Seems sensible for me to do the same with our climate.
And that is my point. We can predict well enough when the bridge will fail. We cannot predict when the climate will fail to any degree of utility.
We need better science on climate because what we have is not good enough. It fails when you ask it the hard questions.