Also, the same list had 'The Color of Magic' as the only Pratchett book. I definitely wouldn't recommend that as the first book to introduce someone to the Disk World series.
You shouldn't forget the metric the metric they used was "Number of times included in a "Best of" list on our site". So they're not saying it's his best work, they're saying it's the one most often included in lists, and that's probably only because it's the first Discworld novel.
It's pretty cool that you can actually click on the entry for the book and see all of the lists that the book was included in.
You must be kiddng. I read one of his books and it was terrible. Seriously, half-way through the climatic battle that the entire book had been building up to, Ringo appears to have become bored and wrapped the rest of the battle with what was essentially "and then all the bad guys died". Now, I can't blame him for getting bored with the battle because it was one of those battles where the good guys have every advantage and the bad guys have got nothing. However, I sure as hell can blame him for writing such a boring piece of trash novel that not even the author could stand to finish it.
The horribly disappointing ending was almost enough to make me forget that "aliens" killed of all the liberal white people, all the disabled, and all the non-white people on earth and made every blond woman an incurable nymphomaniac. Sure, everyone who actually mattered was temporarily saddened by their loss, but the economy suddenly grew so much (now that the liberals were gone) that suddenly everyone was rich and having all the sex they wanted.
Sigh, I really wish that the previous paragraph was actually hyperbole...
I don't think you understand what socialized medicine actually is. You pay taxes, they fund the health system. Doctors get paid a set wage, not per treatment. And insurance companies play no part...
That's mostly correct, although some socialized medicine systems do pay doctors (and hospitals) per treatment. I suppose those are not-completely socialized systems, in that only the insurance part is actually socialized and the doctor's offices, clinics and hospitals are the regular mixture of private for-profit and not-for-profit businesses.
As to science and democracy... you're mixing stoic empirical examination of the universe with petty human politics.
Actually, that's what you are doing. This is a paper about measuring consensus and you are blathering on about how consensus doesn't determine the real world. That's so obvious that it wasn't even worth mentioning, let alone discussing. The paper's called "Consensus on consensus", what did you think it was about?
As to the methodological flaws in the paper, I actually cited those in my first post which you have not addressed.
The flaws you listed are so out there, that I can't even call them wrong. They don't even seem applicable to this paper. The entirety of the analysed data is listed in the paper, so the sample size is "all of them". I didn't see any mention of a phase 1, 2, or 3 in the paper, so I have no idea why you think they exist or were conducted by different people. I also don't know why you think it's both bad that the phases were supposedly conducted by different people and bad that they had access to data from earlier phases? There. Your concerns are addressed: they make absolutely no sense whatsoever in relation to the topic.
Seriously, are you refusing to take some medication? Because your comments are coming off as bat-shit crazy.
What does Donald Trump build? I know he pays other people to design and build hotels. I know he pays other people to run casinos. I know he sells his name to put on products. But what does Trump, himself, actually build, other than his brand?
How anyone can vote for him after watching that is beyond me.
I'm not sure I understand your point, are you saying that you're pro-starving-the-poor-to-death? Or are you just taking a quote out of context to try and rile up the frothing-at-the-mouth-libertarian crowd?
False. Tobacco companies got in trouble because their customers were disproportionally suffering of nasty diseases. Nothing of the kind can be demonstrated for "victims" of climate-skeptics.
Which part of that statement was False? There was a RICO investigation into the Tobacco companies and the central allegation was that "the cigarette industry has purposely and fraudulently misled the public about the risks and dangers of cigarette smoking".
And as usual, you just don't get it. I gave one example. Out of many. You can find them yourself easily enough, and at least one other example has been given here by others.
And yet, you linked to the same guy three times. Why not three different people?
Catching somebody lie about the methodology of their "science" paper is indeed ripping it to shreds. Sorry you don't understand that, but so be it.
But what if the person doing the "catching" is actually the one who is verifiably lying? Your blogger quotes words that aren't in the paper ("Expertise for each consensus estimate was assigned qualitatively, using ordinal values from 1 to 5"), and the bogus quote is central to his argument that the chart is deceptive. Or are you referring to his earlier claim that they were lying because they did not include a paper (Powell 2015) that was never actually published?
I to sophistication, I didn't say you were wrong. I said you weren't signaling sophistication.
Excellent, then we both agree that you are making factually incorrect claims that can be verified as false by children. Frankly, I don't know why you bothered to write anything else. Please try to remember, in the future, that your previous beliefs on sea level have already been shown to be inconsistent with reality.
However, democracy is, and in a democratic world it's important for people to understand what the scientific consensus on a topic is.
Release the RAW fucking data with full disclosure of methodology with the maximum transparency.
This isn't about the raw data that proves global warming, it's about examining why some studies have determined different levels of consensus, and the conclusion is that primary reason is that they measured different groups with different levels of expertise.
The raw data for this study is included in the study, in a nice chart, right in the middle. I strongly suspect, however, that you didn't bother to read it, have no clue what you're writing about, and are just ranting your uninformed pre-existing opinions.
Look, why is this so fucking hard for the sophists to grasp.
Most likely because despite having some kind of fetish for claiming everyone who disagrees with you is a sophist, you have no idea what one actually is. You are clearly unable to recognize that your own behaviour more closely resembles sophism than the behaviour of anyone I have seen you label with that term.
For example, if we denounce any "skeptic" as not an expert (and worse) [realclearscience.com], the above-quoted statement automatically truthful.
Is it ironic that the article you link as evidence is actually not talking about what you claim it is, and is instead talking about how people like you are incredibly willing to believe in conspiracy theories so that you don't have to accept the actual facts of the matter?
And if the denounced non-scientists insist on voicing their ridiculous opposition, we prosecute them as racketeers [scienceblogs.com]. Surely, such felons can not be considered "experts", can they be?
What do you think should happen to people who have knowingly endangered public safety because they were paid to repeat (and publish) lies? What do you think should happen to the people who paid others to lie and obscure the truth for their personal profit at the public's expense? Do people have a responsibility to speak truthfully on matters of public interest or should lying for personal gain not only be tolerated but encouraged as the American way?
The signatories of that letter are requesting an investigation into several companies that are openly known to have paid people to lie on their behalf to avoid the consequences that could fall if the truth were actually widely known. As pointed out in the letter, this would not be the first time for such an investigation. A RICO investigation was conducted into the lies publicly told by cigarette companies and their representatives.
The IPCC itself has lost over 180 lead authors since it began...they all left with the same complaint: the system was rigged to fit a political narrative.
Do you have any proof that your claim is true?
The IPCC doesn't actually pay the lead authors any money, so you might expect some level of turn over in volunteer editors, especially over a 30 year period.
You mean like nuclear power? I see this a lot, the claim is that global warming is the greatest threat to humanity, national security, whatever, and therefore we must have some radical plan to solve this. I then propose nuclear power and people go nuts, "we can't do that, people will die!" or some shit.
Some people are stupid, but the reasons the stupid people give aren't the reasons why nuclear isn't going to be the solution. We would need a lot of engineers to build new nuclear plants because the nuclear industry is already near maximum capacity for building new plants. Trying to dramatically increase the production of nuclear plants will slow down all existing projects (due to employee poaching), drive the price of building new nuclear plants up (from delays due to poaching and salary inflation due to demand) and eventually result in an increase in the capacity to build new plants in the order of 10-20 years from now, as engineers who graduate or switch industries become experienced and can expand the pool of available engineers who can work independently on the projects.
Everyone, including you, needs to face the facts that this is a multi-faceted problem that will require multi-faceted solutions. Nuclear power alone will not stop global warming.
I'll agree with the AC that consensus is meaningless. Try to understand that this is being conflated with Gore's infamous 'the science is settled' line. It should be obvious that the very idea of 'settled science' is antithetical to science, and the consensus claim is intended to bolster that dangerously anti-science assertion. The consensus point, then, is intended to lend credibility to AGW claims without reference to any actual science. (I may be stretching the AC's "supporting science with anti-science" line a bit, but I think I'm on the mark.)
The problem is the the claim that consensus is meaningless is disingenuous. The consensus is important for non-scientists to understand the subject matter. The nay-sayers are trying to confuse lay people by pretending that there is disagreement on the issue. They know that people are more likely to accept doing nothing about a problem if they think the experts can't agree that there is a problem in the first place. Frankly, it's nothing more than manipulation and trickery.
As usual, Jane, you don't fail to amuse. The "people ripping it to shreds" is one guy, with what appears to be a personal grudge against John Cook and the Skeptical Science web site, complaining about one chart used in the paper with much histrionics and hyperbole.
Is this some new meaning of "ripping it to shreds" that I've never heard of before or are you just repeating what you read on some retired weatherman's blog?
Sorry, but he elucidated his case rather well, and listed several points to back up his skepticism.
The problem, is that none of the points he listed are real.
If I say to you that I have problems believing in AGW because of the raw satellite data, and your retort is, "you're just a stupid denier that hasn't realized that all the scientists agree with me"...I have WON that argument. You do realize that, right?
Unfortunately for you that is not the case at all. Neither of us would have won anything because neither of us has said anything of value. You seem to falling for the fallacy fallacy, in which you think you can win a debate by showing that your opponent used a fallacy. And frankly, you wouldn't know what to do with the "raw" satellite data, and I strongly suspect you have no idea how the satellites work at all.
Noting that Hansen was incorrect in his prediction of doom, does not "prove that he is correct".
It's not that Hansen was right or wrong, it's that the indicated prediction was never made. Hansen made a prediction for 40 years in the future if CO2 doubles, neither condition has occurred so he it's a bit hard to evaluate the accuracy of his prediction before it can have occurred.
The sad thing is you like to call that "science".
No, I call science, science. This is merely debunking idiots on Slashdot.
I already contradicted that claim with my own citation.
A real stoic would have actually provided a citation, instead of claiming that he had one.
You're hardly signaling your sophisticated grasp of the issue by citing a wikipedia article a child could find.
That is quite the sophistry: You claim that my statement is wrong because any child could find the same, correct, answer? Do you also wish to dispute that the world is round and that 1 + 1 = 2?
I care more about being right than scoring meaningless social status points.
Unfortunately for you, all of the facts in evidence show this statement to be false. If it were true, you would have refuted my statement with a few simple words, instead of replying to it with meaningless posturing and irrelevant claims and failing to actually address the fact that you believe things which every subject matter expert says is wrong.
Your chest-thumping and self-congratulations are really quite tiresome, personally I think you don't win arguments as much your boorish behaviour convinces them to simply avoid you.
I can't be bothered to debunk all your delusions, so let's just stick to the first one, one I've personally correct you on before only to have you ignore what was explicitly written in your sources with a hand-waving argument about how your interpretation of a graph was far more important than what the person who made the graph wrote explicitly in the accompanying article. See level rise has not remained consistent over the last 200 years. It's been increasing at a rate of 0.013 mm (+- 0.006) per year per year. I can provide quite a few additional sources for that information, but I don't believe you will ever accept any amount of evidence that is contrary to your pre-existing beliefs so it would very likely be a waste of my time to list them. But here's a hint, it's all of the other sources, with the possible exception of certain retired weatherman's blog.
So, since you claim expertise on the subject and the very first point where you diverge from mainstream climate science demonstrates wilful ignorance of the facts, you are thus proven to be either a sophist with delusions of stoicism. For the record, the other places you diverge from the mainstream views are equally wrong, but as previously mentioned, it is simply not worth my time to debunk them to someone who's proven in the past that he will refuse to listen to facts, arguments, and reason whenever it suits his purpose.
It's a relatively simple and straight forward engineering problem just look at what the industrialization and mobilization for WWII accomplished in 5 years.
If people were truly serious, then that is what we would be doing right now, until then I have a had time believing that people think it's a problem.
Yes, it's only a matter of money. Well it's actually a lot of money, the North American nuclear industry is already near or at capacity. Start building more nuclear plants and the build rate will decline for all of the projects including those underway, as the new projects begin poaching employees from current projects. Then the price for every project will increase exponentially as competition drives the wages for nuclear qualified engineers into the stratosphere. Sure, they'll eventually come back down to earth after people notice and new engineers start rolling into the industry, but we're probably looking at a 5-10 year delay before that even starts happening.
So, yeah, if you have infinite money, it's a pretty solid plan that would eventually work...
Bill Nye has done nothing to contribute to a more scientific approuch in this discussion and has instead poured fuel on the flame war by saying that anyone that holds a contrary position is either stupid or a shill. Never mind the fact that quite a few of the claims have been disproven and quite a few of the predictions didn't happen.
It would be easier to criticize his position, if he wasn't correct. Climate change "skeptics" come in three types: dishonest, deluded or ignorant.
Hanson for example predicted that half of New York City would be underwater by now. Well, it isn't.
Thank you for proving that he is correct.
Stoics just care if they're right.
The problem here is that you obviously don't care if you're correct. You repeat falsehoods blithely and you dismiss expert opinions because you wish they weren't true. You use "tribalism" as an excuse to dismiss the cold hard facts. Frankly, you're a sophist masquerading as a stoic, the only question is whether or not you're also fooling yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, the same list had 'The Color of Magic' as the only Pratchett book. I definitely wouldn't recommend that as the first book to introduce someone to the Disk World series.
You shouldn't forget the metric the metric they used was "Number of times included in a "Best of" list on our site". So they're not saying it's his best work, they're saying it's the one most often included in lists, and that's probably only because it's the first Discworld novel.
It's pretty cool that you can actually click on the entry for the book and see all of the lists that the book was included in.
Actually, it's listed on the World Without End list, and I suspect that the other two lists deliberately excluded comedic works.
You must be kiddng. I read one of his books and it was terrible. Seriously, half-way through the climatic battle that the entire book had been building up to, Ringo appears to have become bored and wrapped the rest of the battle with what was essentially "and then all the bad guys died". Now, I can't blame him for getting bored with the battle because it was one of those battles where the good guys have every advantage and the bad guys have got nothing. However, I sure as hell can blame him for writing such a boring piece of trash novel that not even the author could stand to finish it.
The horribly disappointing ending was almost enough to make me forget that "aliens" killed of all the liberal white people, all the disabled, and all the non-white people on earth and made every blond woman an incurable nymphomaniac. Sure, everyone who actually mattered was temporarily saddened by their loss, but the economy suddenly grew so much (now that the liberals were gone) that suddenly everyone was rich and having all the sex they wanted.
Sigh, I really wish that the previous paragraph was actually hyperbole...
I don't think you understand what socialized medicine actually is. You pay taxes, they fund the health system. Doctors get paid a set wage, not per treatment. And insurance companies play no part...
That's mostly correct, although some socialized medicine systems do pay doctors (and hospitals) per treatment. I suppose those are not-completely socialized systems, in that only the insurance part is actually socialized and the doctor's offices, clinics and hospitals are the regular mixture of private for-profit and not-for-profit businesses.
Perceived?! When they vote "No Award" so to not give an award to someone based on their views, that is text book bias.
What if they voted "No Award" because all the choices were terrible? Is that still bias?
As to science and democracy... you're mixing stoic empirical examination of the universe with petty human politics.
Actually, that's what you are doing. This is a paper about measuring consensus and you are blathering on about how consensus doesn't determine the real world. That's so obvious that it wasn't even worth mentioning, let alone discussing. The paper's called "Consensus on consensus", what did you think it was about?
As to the methodological flaws in the paper, I actually cited those in my first post which you have not addressed.
The flaws you listed are so out there, that I can't even call them wrong. They don't even seem applicable to this paper. The entirety of the analysed data is listed in the paper, so the sample size is "all of them". I didn't see any mention of a phase 1, 2, or 3 in the paper, so I have no idea why you think they exist or were conducted by different people. I also don't know why you think it's both bad that the phases were supposedly conducted by different people and bad that they had access to data from earlier phases? There. Your concerns are addressed: they make absolutely no sense whatsoever in relation to the topic.
Seriously, are you refusing to take some medication? Because your comments are coming off as bat-shit crazy.
Thomas Edison built things.
So does Donald Trump.
What does Donald Trump build? I know he pays other people to design and build hotels. I know he pays other people to run casinos. I know he sells his name to put on products. But what does Trump, himself, actually build, other than his brand?
How anyone can vote for him after watching that is beyond me.
I'm not sure I understand your point, are you saying that you're pro-starving-the-poor-to-death? Or are you just taking a quote out of context to try and rile up the frothing-at-the-mouth-libertarian crowd?
False. Tobacco companies got in trouble because their customers were disproportionally suffering of nasty diseases. Nothing of the kind can be demonstrated for "victims" of climate-skeptics.
Which part of that statement was False? There was a RICO investigation into the Tobacco companies and the central allegation was that "the cigarette industry has purposely and fraudulently misled the public about the risks and dangers of cigarette smoking".
And as usual, you just don't get it. I gave one example. Out of many. You can find them yourself easily enough, and at least one other example has been given here by others.
And yet, you linked to the same guy three times. Why not three different people?
Catching somebody lie about the methodology of their "science" paper is indeed ripping it to shreds. Sorry you don't understand that, but so be it.
But what if the person doing the "catching" is actually the one who is verifiably lying? Your blogger quotes words that aren't in the paper ("Expertise for each consensus estimate was assigned qualitatively, using ordinal values from 1 to 5"), and the bogus quote is central to his argument that the chart is deceptive. Or are you referring to his earlier claim that they were lying because they did not include a paper (Powell 2015) that was never actually published?
Again, that was but one example of many. You can find more here.
Is it ironic or insightful that your link shows no results at all?
I to sophistication, I didn't say you were wrong. I said you weren't signaling sophistication.
Excellent, then we both agree that you are making factually incorrect claims that can be verified as false by children. Frankly, I don't know why you bothered to write anything else. Please try to remember, in the future, that your previous beliefs on sea level have already been shown to be inconsistent with reality.
Science is not a democracy.
However, democracy is, and in a democratic world it's important for people to understand what the scientific consensus on a topic is.
Release the RAW fucking data with full disclosure of methodology with the maximum transparency.
This isn't about the raw data that proves global warming, it's about examining why some studies have determined different levels of consensus, and the conclusion is that primary reason is that they measured different groups with different levels of expertise.
The raw data for this study is included in the study, in a nice chart, right in the middle. I strongly suspect, however, that you didn't bother to read it, have no clue what you're writing about, and are just ranting your uninformed pre-existing opinions.
Look, why is this so fucking hard for the sophists to grasp.
Most likely because despite having some kind of fetish for claiming everyone who disagrees with you is a sophist, you have no idea what one actually is. You are clearly unable to recognize that your own behaviour more closely resembles sophism than the behaviour of anyone I have seen you label with that term.
For example, if we denounce any "skeptic" as not an expert (and worse) [realclearscience.com], the above-quoted statement automatically truthful.
Is it ironic that the article you link as evidence is actually not talking about what you claim it is, and is instead talking about how people like you are incredibly willing to believe in conspiracy theories so that you don't have to accept the actual facts of the matter?
And if the denounced non-scientists insist on voicing their ridiculous opposition, we prosecute them as racketeers [scienceblogs.com]. Surely, such felons can not be considered "experts", can they be?
What do you think should happen to people who have knowingly endangered public safety because they were paid to repeat (and publish) lies? What do you think should happen to the people who paid others to lie and obscure the truth for their personal profit at the public's expense? Do people have a responsibility to speak truthfully on matters of public interest or should lying for personal gain not only be tolerated but encouraged as the American way?
The signatories of that letter are requesting an investigation into several companies that are openly known to have paid people to lie on their behalf to avoid the consequences that could fall if the truth were actually widely known. As pointed out in the letter, this would not be the first time for such an investigation. A RICO investigation was conducted into the lies publicly told by cigarette companies and their representatives.
The IPCC itself has lost over 180 lead authors since it began...they all left with the same complaint: the system was rigged to fit a political narrative.
Do you have any proof that your claim is true?
The IPCC doesn't actually pay the lead authors any money, so you might expect some level of turn over in volunteer editors, especially over a 30 year period.
You mean like nuclear power? I see this a lot, the claim is that global warming is the greatest threat to humanity, national security, whatever, and therefore we must have some radical plan to solve this. I then propose nuclear power and people go nuts, "we can't do that, people will die!" or some shit.
Some people are stupid, but the reasons the stupid people give aren't the reasons why nuclear isn't going to be the solution. We would need a lot of engineers to build new nuclear plants because the nuclear industry is already near maximum capacity for building new plants. Trying to dramatically increase the production of nuclear plants will slow down all existing projects (due to employee poaching), drive the price of building new nuclear plants up (from delays due to poaching and salary inflation due to demand) and eventually result in an increase in the capacity to build new plants in the order of 10-20 years from now, as engineers who graduate or switch industries become experienced and can expand the pool of available engineers who can work independently on the projects.
Everyone, including you, needs to face the facts that this is a multi-faceted problem that will require multi-faceted solutions. Nuclear power alone will not stop global warming.
I'll agree with the AC that consensus is meaningless. Try to understand that this is being conflated with Gore's infamous 'the science is settled' line. It should be obvious that the very idea of 'settled science' is antithetical to science, and the consensus claim is intended to bolster that dangerously anti-science assertion. The consensus point, then, is intended to lend credibility to AGW claims without reference to any actual science. (I may be stretching the AC's "supporting science with anti-science" line a bit, but I think I'm on the mark.)
The problem is the the claim that consensus is meaningless is disingenuous. The consensus is important for non-scientists to understand the subject matter. The nay-sayers are trying to confuse lay people by pretending that there is disagreement on the issue. They know that people are more likely to accept doing nothing about a problem if they think the experts can't agree that there is a problem in the first place. Frankly, it's nothing more than manipulation and trickery.
Sorry, cowardly internet troll, it looks like the Theory wins.
As usual, Jane, you don't fail to amuse. The "people ripping it to shreds" is one guy, with what appears to be a personal grudge against John Cook and the Skeptical Science web site, complaining about one chart used in the paper with much histrionics and hyperbole.
Is this some new meaning of "ripping it to shreds" that I've never heard of before or are you just repeating what you read on some retired weatherman's blog?
It's at times like this that I think Slashdot needs a "WTF?" mod.
Sorry, but he elucidated his case rather well, and listed several points to back up his skepticism.
The problem, is that none of the points he listed are real.
If I say to you that I have problems believing in AGW because of the raw satellite data, and your retort is, "you're just a stupid denier that hasn't realized that all the scientists agree with me"...I have WON that argument. You do realize that, right?
Unfortunately for you that is not the case at all. Neither of us would have won anything because neither of us has said anything of value. You seem to falling for the fallacy fallacy, in which you think you can win a debate by showing that your opponent used a fallacy. And frankly, you wouldn't know what to do with the "raw" satellite data, and I strongly suspect you have no idea how the satellites work at all.
Noting that Hansen was incorrect in his prediction of doom, does not "prove that he is correct".
It's not that Hansen was right or wrong, it's that the indicated prediction was never made. Hansen made a prediction for 40 years in the future if CO2 doubles, neither condition has occurred so he it's a bit hard to evaluate the accuracy of his prediction before it can have occurred.
The sad thing is you like to call that "science".
No, I call science, science. This is merely debunking idiots on Slashdot.
I already contradicted that claim with my own citation.
A real stoic would have actually provided a citation, instead of claiming that he had one.
You're hardly signaling your sophisticated grasp of the issue by citing a wikipedia article a child could find.
That is quite the sophistry: You claim that my statement is wrong because any child could find the same, correct, answer? Do you also wish to dispute that the world is round and that 1 + 1 = 2?
I care more about being right than scoring meaningless social status points.
Unfortunately for you, all of the facts in evidence show this statement to be false. If it were true, you would have refuted my statement with a few simple words, instead of replying to it with meaningless posturing and irrelevant claims and failing to actually address the fact that you believe things which every subject matter expert says is wrong.
Your chest-thumping and self-congratulations are really quite tiresome, personally I think you don't win arguments as much your boorish behaviour convinces them to simply avoid you.
I can't be bothered to debunk all your delusions, so let's just stick to the first one, one I've personally correct you on before only to have you ignore what was explicitly written in your sources with a hand-waving argument about how your interpretation of a graph was far more important than what the person who made the graph wrote explicitly in the accompanying article. See level rise has not remained consistent over the last 200 years. It's been increasing at a rate of 0.013 mm (+- 0.006) per year per year. I can provide quite a few additional sources for that information, but I don't believe you will ever accept any amount of evidence that is contrary to your pre-existing beliefs so it would very likely be a waste of my time to list them. But here's a hint, it's all of the other sources, with the possible exception of certain retired weatherman's blog.
So, since you claim expertise on the subject and the very first point where you diverge from mainstream climate science demonstrates wilful ignorance of the facts, you are thus proven to be either a sophist with delusions of stoicism. For the record, the other places you diverge from the mainstream views are equally wrong, but as previously mentioned, it is simply not worth my time to debunk them to someone who's proven in the past that he will refuse to listen to facts, arguments, and reason whenever it suits his purpose.
Damn dem scientists! They dirn't no nuthin' about Science like me and Billy Bob McCheese! Weese smurt.
It's a relatively simple and straight forward engineering problem just look at what the industrialization and mobilization for WWII accomplished in 5 years.
If people were truly serious, then that is what we would be doing right now, until then I have a had time believing that people think it's a problem.
Yes, it's only a matter of money. Well it's actually a lot of money, the North American nuclear industry is already near or at capacity. Start building more nuclear plants and the build rate will decline for all of the projects including those underway, as the new projects begin poaching employees from current projects. Then the price for every project will increase exponentially as competition drives the wages for nuclear qualified engineers into the stratosphere. Sure, they'll eventually come back down to earth after people notice and new engineers start rolling into the industry, but we're probably looking at a 5-10 year delay before that even starts happening.
So, yeah, if you have infinite money, it's a pretty solid plan that would eventually work...
Bill Nye has done nothing to contribute to a more scientific approuch in this discussion and has instead poured fuel on the flame war by saying that anyone that holds a contrary position is either stupid or a shill. Never mind the fact that quite a few of the claims have been disproven and quite a few of the predictions didn't happen.
It would be easier to criticize his position, if he wasn't correct. Climate change "skeptics" come in three types: dishonest, deluded or ignorant.
Hanson for example predicted that half of New York City would be underwater by now. Well, it isn't.
Thank you for proving that he is correct.
Stoics just care if they're right.
The problem here is that you obviously don't care if you're correct. You repeat falsehoods blithely and you dismiss expert opinions because you wish they weren't true. You use "tribalism" as an excuse to dismiss the cold hard facts. Frankly, you're a sophist masquerading as a stoic, the only question is whether or not you're also fooling yourself.