The scientific community also suppressed evidence of Lamarckian-looking evolution because it didn't fit the consensus view that Darwinian theories were the answer. And now what do we find? OOPS! Consensus was wrong, for something like 150 years, and there is plenty of evidence showing that Lamarck was on to something. He didn't understand the mechanism, but he was right - ACQUIRED TRAITS CAN BE INHERITED. The scientific community can be wrong, and shouting down dissenting views isn't good science. There's a lot more to the world than "scientific consensus" can understand.
And, despite gaps in knowledge, weather events once deemed a freak are likely to become more frequent or more vicious, inflicting a potentially high toll in deaths, economic damage and misery, it said.
I wonder how life has survived on for so long on this planet? For a majority of the Earth's history, the temperature has been warmer than it is now and there have been no polar ice caps. A phenomenon like the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum must have had a very detrimental effect on life on this planet, but the geologic record doesn't show that. It shows there was an explosion of diversification of species during that time, particularly with mammals.
During the Paleocene-Eocene we didn't have to feed and water 7,000,000,000 people, of whom a large fraction live in coastal areas near the sea level.
Sure, we can let the climate go wild and ourselves go back to a species of about a million hunters-gatherers. Is that what you want?
If not, pointing out that this planet has been very hot before is utterly irrelevant to the discussion.
The funny thing is that global warming deniers who have problems accepting conclusions from scientific studies have no problems believing crackpot theories about "overpopulation" or "islamification".
I think the people with their panties in a bunch over islamification are just theocrats who don't want the competition.
Not sure what you're talking about on the overpopulation thing, but the basic cluster (f) of denialism and paranoia is just a correlation that comes out of the socio-political organization of the USA. In particular, the rich (who don't like the fact of global warming, because doing something about it would cost them money) have gotten in bed with the religious right (who imagine all manner of terrors and fantasies), because the rich have to deal with those troublesome elections in order keep running the country.
So you get social conservatives believing that global warming is a plot by liberal scientists, and plutocrats happy to ignore or even fan the flames of *phobia.
More arable land results in a "resource war"? And global warmers wonder why we laugh at them.
The problem is, some countries are going to end up with a better environment for agriculture than they have now, and others are going to end up with worse.
The have-nots will undoubtedly be happy to become haves, but the haves aren't going to be very happy to become have-nots.
Look at the long history of the Western Powers manipulating the Middle East to ensure their oil supply, tough shit if you happen to live there. Then imagine what's going to happen if those same Powers find themselves needing to ensure a food supply.
I don't understand then. Is being conservative a good thing or bad thing? Conservative sounds normal, while the alternative sounds like sensationalism and jumping to conclusions. In other words, people who accept the non-conservative approach are not basing their "beliefs" on science.
Science tends to be conservative. Come out with a weird new idea like continental drift, expanding universe, mobile genes, etc., and people want to see some evidence. (Sometimes, ISTM, *too* conservative.)
OPERA apparently played it straight with the scientific method on the FTL neutrino thingy, but even so the director feels like he needs to resign now that it turned out to be wrong.
I didn't overstate anything. I said no one thinks this is going to happen. I was unaware there was work predicting an anoxic event due to CO2 emissions.
I also don't expect the planet to become uninhabitable. *However*, we may be dealing with a non-linear system that will undergo a catastrophic state change if pushed far enough from it's current stable state. AIUI, some scientists speculate that's what turned Mars into a desert world.
but small island states, poor nations and arid regions
Tough luck; politicians in the largest superpower, which is neither a small island, poor nor arid, have determined through extensive consulting of industry lobbyists and religious leaders that global warming does not exist.
Thank God we've got experts to keep us from being misled by all those scientists.
There is 7 BILLION people on this planet, and nearly 1/3 of the forest has been cut down in the last century. With all the polution humans cause, and millions roads that we built, how can anyone dispute our involvement in climate change?
The same way a certain kind of person disputes any other fact that has implications they don't like.
Or that their leaders don't like, and tell them that they shouldn't like either.
Planet of the Bonobos. If they have wireless tabs, then one clever one will find a way to take control of a Predator. What then humans? It's going to be World War 3, between Bonobos and Robot Overlords with us stuck in the middle trying to stick flowers into their barrels. Wang Weilin will be squished.
I'm more worried about all the spam they'll start sending.
For their Penis Fencing Festivals and that kind of stuff.
Childhood friend never spoke until he was five. Seemed to be in a world of his own, but I still liked him. So he graduated from one of the Ivy League (honors or something) and finished two doctorates. He's still in his own world.
Heh... I thought you were talking about a childhood imaginary friend.
Was over at a friends house recently. He had on some kind of Mickey mouse adventure DVD for the baby. It was essentially demented. Mickey mouse traping around on an undefined saccharine adventure with shapeshifting companions, reaching into a sack of some kind to use tools on CG doors that lead to the next microplot with no connection to what came before or after.
It was the closest I have ever seen film come to capturing the hazy stream of consciousness of a dream. I think it was over an hour long.
If Disney and others have been mass producing DVDs like that for children for the last 15 years, I'd fully expect incidences of all kinds of mental pathology to be skyrocketing right about now.
The entire baby-boomer generation was raised by televisions showing hours of insane cartoons. I think we need to look elsewhere for an explanation.
Here at Slashdot, we take our comments seriously. At the very least, you are expected to keep a couple of dozen brain cells functioning if you intend to post. Proper spelling and grammar are optional, but highly recommended.
You act like you're new here.
Do you base that on the claim about functioning brain cells, or the claim that proper spelling and grammar are recommended?
Slashdot Mirror
The scientific community also suppressed evidence of Lamarckian-looking evolution because it didn't fit the consensus view that Darwinian theories were the answer. And now what do we find? OOPS! Consensus was wrong, for something like 150 years, and there is plenty of evidence showing that Lamarck was on to something. He didn't understand the mechanism, but he was right - ACQUIRED TRAITS CAN BE INHERITED. The scientific community can be wrong, and shouting down dissenting views isn't good science. There's a lot more to the world than "scientific consensus" can understand.
Suppressed?
I wonder how life has survived on for so long on this planet? For a majority of the Earth's history, the temperature has been warmer than it is now and there have been no polar ice caps.
A phenomenon like the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum must have had a very detrimental effect on life on this planet, but the geologic record doesn't show that. It shows there was an explosion of diversification of species during that time, particularly with mammals.
During the Paleocene-Eocene we didn't have to feed and water 7,000,000,000 people, of whom a large fraction live in coastal areas near the sea level.
Sure, we can let the climate go wild and ourselves go back to a species of about a million hunters-gatherers. Is that what you want?
If not, pointing out that this planet has been very hot before is utterly irrelevant to the discussion.
2. We have some evidence that human pollution has caused some of the symptoms of climate change.
Do you dispute the science of greenhouse gasses?
Do you dispute the fact that we've spent over a century spewing huge amounts of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere?
Are you clutching at straws?
The funny thing is that global warming deniers who have problems accepting conclusions from scientific studies have no problems believing crackpot theories about "overpopulation" or "islamification".
I think the people with their panties in a bunch over islamification are just theocrats who don't want the competition.
Not sure what you're talking about on the overpopulation thing, but the basic cluster (f) of denialism and paranoia is just a correlation that comes out of the socio-political organization of the USA. In particular, the rich (who don't like the fact of global warming, because doing something about it would cost them money) have gotten in bed with the religious right (who imagine all manner of terrors and fantasies), because the rich have to deal with those troublesome elections in order keep running the country.
So you get social conservatives believing that global warming is a plot by liberal scientists, and plutocrats happy to ignore or even fan the flames of *phobia.
More arable land results in a "resource war"? And global warmers wonder why we laugh at them.
The problem is, some countries are going to end up with a better environment for agriculture than they have now, and others are going to end up with worse.
The have-nots will undoubtedly be happy to become haves, but the haves aren't going to be very happy to become have-nots.
Look at the long history of the Western Powers manipulating the Middle East to ensure their oil supply, tough shit if you happen to live there. Then imagine what's going to happen if those same Powers find themselves needing to ensure a food supply.
I don't understand then. Is being conservative a good thing or bad thing? Conservative sounds normal, while the alternative sounds like sensationalism and jumping to conclusions. In other words, people who accept the non-conservative approach are not basing their "beliefs" on science.
Science tends to be conservative. Come out with a weird new idea like continental drift, expanding universe, mobile genes, etc., and people want to see some evidence. (Sometimes, ISTM, *too* conservative.)
OPERA apparently played it straight with the scientific method on the FTL neutrino thingy, but even so the director feels like he needs to resign now that it turned out to be wrong.
Sure. Blogwhoring, but here: http://dr2chase.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/this-looks-bad/
I only follow it casually, but it looks to me like they've consistently underestimated the rate of melt-down at both poles.
But note, asteroid strikes are also low-probability, and we study those.
And we fairly often hear serious calls to do something about the risk.
I didn't overstate anything. I said no one thinks this is going to happen. I was unaware there was work predicting an anoxic event due to CO2 emissions.
I also don't expect the planet to become uninhabitable. *However*, we may be dealing with a non-linear system that will undergo a catastrophic state change if pushed far enough from it's current stable state. AIUI, some scientists speculate that's what turned Mars into a desert world.
This article was about climate science. It quickly turned into conservative bashing.
In these contexts, the bashing kinda correlates with who's denying the science.
I'm sure it's just a coincidence that it turns out to be conservatives so often.
Tough luck; politicians in the largest superpower, which is neither a small island, poor nor arid, have determined through extensive consulting of industry lobbyists and religious leaders that global warming does not exist.
Thank God we've got experts to keep us from being misled by all those scientists.
more regulations, taxes
Think of the billionaires' children!
There is 7 BILLION people on this planet, and nearly 1/3 of the forest has been cut down in the last century. With all the polution humans cause, and millions roads that we built, how can anyone dispute our involvement in climate change?
The same way a certain kind of person disputes any other fact that has implications they don't like.
Or that their leaders don't like, and tell them that they shouldn't like either.
Planet of the Bonobos. If they have wireless tabs, then one clever one will find a way to take control of a Predator. What then humans? It's going to be World War 3, between Bonobos and Robot Overlords with us stuck in the middle trying to stick flowers into their barrels. Wang Weilin will be squished.
I'm more worried about all the spam they'll start sending.
For their Penis Fencing Festivals and that kind of stuff.
If you're a big fan of apes (or Darwinism), be sure to donate.
How do the apes feel about this?
It's affected by autism, not affected with autism. And it's not an infection either. There.
Fixed your subject line for you.
Childhood friend never spoke until he was five. Seemed to be in a world of his own, but I still liked him. So he graduated from one of the Ivy League (honors or something) and finished two doctorates. He's still in his own world.
Heh... I thought you were talking about a childhood imaginary friend.
Was over at a friends house recently. He had on some kind of Mickey mouse adventure DVD for the baby. It was essentially demented. Mickey mouse traping around on an undefined saccharine adventure with shapeshifting companions, reaching into a sack of some kind to use tools on CG doors that lead to the next microplot with no connection to what came before or after.
It was the closest I have ever seen film come to capturing the hazy stream of consciousness of a dream. I think it was over an hour long.
If Disney and others have been mass producing DVDs like that for children for the last 15 years, I'd fully expect incidences of all kinds of mental pathology to be skyrocketing right about now.
The entire baby-boomer generation was raised by televisions showing hours of insane cartoons. I think we need to look elsewhere for an explanation.
Define "normal".
Like me.
Does it say what the total IT budget is? Hard to say what the number means without context.
(Sorry, I'm not getting the translation.)
Now watch all the rabid Microsoft zealots come out foaming at the mouths.
That's ok. If we don't argue about this, we'll argue about something else.
And these days, it seems like it isn't the MS zealots that come out foaming anymore anyway. (If I say more, I'll be accused of flamesturbaiting.)
Here at Slashdot, we take our comments seriously. At the very least, you are expected to keep a couple of dozen brain cells functioning if you intend to post. Proper spelling and grammar are optional, but highly recommended.
You act like you're new here.
Do you base that on the claim about functioning brain cells, or the claim that proper spelling and grammar are recommended?
not going to make a starship out of water or gases... so to even invade with starships, they have to already have found sources of metal...
Well, if they do make a starship out of gas, the fan suddenly becomes our ultimate weapon.
For space battles, the fan won't be much help.
Nothing is "ageless".
How old is time itself?
I don't think that's a well-formed question. It's like asking "how long is distance?".
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime, doubly so.
Quitting time, infinitely so.