What happens when a human is not sure of what to do and he/she needs to wait for orders from earth, or earth needs to wait for the humans on mars to send data back to them.
You don't have it as often. Both humans and moderately advanced robotics can find things to do while they wait too.
Yes humans are just an expensive payload, but why use them when there are more cost effective payload options?
Currently, there aren't.
Humans have basically hit their computational limit.
It's not a computational problem and we're nowhere near any such limits of humans. Basically, we have at most a few weeks of Mars surface work and research for humans spread out over four decades.
So you run around telling the world you will use them only in defense AND wont sign a NFU as it "limits options" such as enless threats of using them?
I gather from your question mark that you have a question. So what is it? It's rather obvious that the best defense against a nuclear attack is to stop the attack before it starts. Preemptive nuclear strike is one way to attempt that.
You still have the fundamental problem of control and communication. Mars can be up to a light hour away and the outer Solar System is even worse. That's terrible when you're trying to operate machinery remotely and it also shows up in large delays when making any decisions about the activity in question.
Further, you need to deliver that computer to the destination and it'll need tools for doing its job. Those things aren't govern by Moore's law. For example, there's a certain minimal amount of infrastructure one needs in order to return a kilogram of rock to Earth or drill a few hundred meters into soil. Radiation hardening also creates a scale limitation. Make it too small then it breaks when it gets zapped by charged particles.
Humans are just another payload. While humans have quirks that make them somewhat more expensive than most payloads, computer/robotics systems will have many of these same quirks (such as sensitivity to radiation, need for a controlled environment, the need for resources such as energy and management of those resources, etc).
I think my comments kind of weren't your point. For example, you're babbling about "condone violence against 'innocents'" on the basis that someone just fought a war and thought they might need to again.
We do have many historical examples of violence against innocents, including a few from the US's Revolutionary War. But most war is not of that sort. It's violence that involves innocents, but it doesn't target them. For if it did, there'd be a lot more dead innocents than there have been.
My point is that I'm saddened that we will fight so hard to keep open the violent guns part of the constitution, but keep rolling over on the trampling of other amendments in the name of security.
While some people don't place the same importance on every bit of the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, it's worth noting here that people who tend to advocate violating the Second Amendment, tend to advocate breaking other amendments as well. My view is that there's nothing magical about the wording of the Second Amendment (that people had a right to bear arms). Anyone who can misinterpret that bit of law to their own advantage, can do the same for any other bit, such as the vaunted First Amendment.
One man alone can't rebel against any tyranny.
Sure, they can. It just means that they're very unlikely to fully succeed. But it is quite possible, for example, to cause far more damage than you can possibly receive. For example, we have two cases in recent years, the 9/11 attacks (which led to all these terrorism responses which you complain about) and the self-immolation death that triggered the Arab Spring (and the downfall of four governments so far). That latter case also didn't start with much in the way of organization. The guy in question apparently made a threat that he would burn himself, then he did it within the hour.
But that event was enough to knock Tunisia into an uncontrolled state with escalating riots that led within the month to the flight of the long time ruler of Tunisia to whoever would take him. It then spilled over into the rest of the Middle East and North Africa, taking down the governments of Egypt, Libya, and Yemen as well as triggering a nasty civil war in Syria.
Guy points out solar works in Germany, which is cloudier than America. Dude responds with talk about subsidies.
That's the obvious rebuttal, you know. Solar "works" there only because it is heavily subsidized. Once they take away those subsidies, it'll stop working except perhaps some niche cases.
Nuclear power may be in that boat too. Take away the subsidy of liability protection and those plants look a whole lot less attractive.
If you shills aren't being paid to engage in this clearly fallacious, goal-post-shifting, downright embarrassing display of contrarianism
Ok, so you're complaining about "goal-post-shifting" rather than addressing an obvious complaint.
Did the founding fathers really deal with or consider single perpetrator mass shootings? The closest thing I could think of would be bombings, and I don't know that the Second Amendment had anything in there about explosives.
They would have been aware of Guy Fawkes and the attempted bombing of the UK Parliament. And it's worth noting here that single perpetrator mass shootings don't actually kill that many people - especially when the would-be victims happen to be armed.
Of course, if we were that OK with the level of death, we shouldn't be anywhere near as freaked out about terrorism as we seem to be.
Well, I'm not particularly "freaked out", though I should note that the US has lost about as many people to the 911 terrorist attacks as to single perpetrator mass shootings.
Higher cost is a different argument. There we need to keep in mind that access to space is getting cheaper over time. It's a lot less expensive to do things in space now than it was in the 1970s.
That dynamic will change the relative costs of a manned mission versus unmanned missions. And given that the former do orders of magnitude more than the latter currently, we need to consider that the price can decline to the point where purely robotic missions no longer makes economic sense.
There is an implicit contract between all of us on how society works: that we give up some freedoms, as do our fellow citizens, in order to make society work.
I'm willing to call it a "cooperation". A "contract" implies things that don't exist here such as explicit terms and agreement to those terms.
The fact that it is not written down means that we can actually have different views of what is actually in the contract
Well, as long as we all agree on what that is, that's ok. Else this unwritten contract isn't worth the paper it's written on.
Writing things down fixes them, while society changes.
So what? There's no indication here that the cooperative aspects of our society changes. For example, the concerns of privacy haven't changed despite the changes in technology.
A prime example here is the Second Amendment: while not saying it is right or wrong, I am certain those who wrote and passed it did not foresee current firearms technology.
I think that's a dubious claim to make. All that has happened is that such firearms have become lighter, more reliable, and have a much faster firing rate. In other words, they've become better at the job they do. That's not hard to predict. And I'm fairly certain that the technology hasn't advanced to the point where original backers would have changed their minds.
I think of all the current political terms out there, "social contract" has to be one of the most worthless. It's a "contract" that you "agree" with by not trying to destroy society hard enough. It doesn't actually exist in any concrete form. And the terms of the supposed contract mean whatever the speaker feels they mean at the moment.
Let's store the next 30 years worth of excess carbon dioxide in huge underground chambers
so that instead of gradual climate change that the environment can adjust to and compensate
for we instead have a massive catastrophic climate change when one of those chambers
springs a leak.
The rate of leakage would have to be greater than the original output in order for this to be a problem.
People say that a lot for this sort of thing, but I don't think it's been done, except for the ISS. When Apollo was setup, just rendezvous of two different things was considered potentially impossible. Plus, what's the real advantage to this assemble in pieces, except for getting around the maximum lift capacity of modern rockets?
Aside from that very important thing of not requiring a huge, expensive rocket, it also reduces the risks from a launch failure. There's nothing on a spaceship, including its crew, that you can't have back ups of.
Second, there's nothing magical about assembling things in orbit. The ISS, for example, didn't have a particularly difficult time of it. And docking spacecraft with each other is becoming rather routine. That's another route to assembling things in orbit.
I maintain that LEO is 100 km... average distance to Jupiter is 8 million times further. 8 million
And I noted how irrelevant that observation is. You can just drift and all. I think it more significant, the time duration of the flight. Even with considerable propulsion power at their disposal, say nuclear propulsion, it's still a long trip. I can't see it becoming less than two years one way (Hohmann transfer trajectory with Jupiter is 2.75 years, you can hustle that a bit with better propulsion) without a substantial revolution in relatively affordable propulsion.
To get a lump of metal to arrive just requires amazing aim
Or course corrections.
to get a lump of meat there, I'd want more assurances
But of course. I'll just say that I doubt there's many people who think this group will get to the point of bending metal for actual space activities, much less the point where they have assurances to offer.
I suppose that's why we have economics as a theory. Sure, people can make choices willy nilly. But it turns out that they tend to make choices that favor interests, theirs or others that they support.
People had the freedom to choose. Losing their freedom was a consequence of their choice.
But it didn't have to be a consequence.
Going back to my first point, people continue to make more wrong choices instead of actually facing the consequences or doing something to reverse the wrong doing.
Or make wrong doing not wrong doing. There's a considerable parsimony of power to making something not illegal.
Sorry, it's been a little while. I meant the less aggressive technique of aerobraking which allows for multiple passes through atmosphere rather than aerocapture which attempts to shed all excess velocity in one go. You have to worry a bit more about Jupiter's nasty radiation environment with aerobraking, but that is at least something that has been well tried.
Except that you need to overcome the gravity well of earth and (parts of) the sun. Here, I have an illustrative xkcd refecence: http://xkcd.com/681_large/.
If you look at that particular diagram, you don't see "orders of magnitude" difference between Earth and Io especially once you including kinetic energy (a good portion of the energy required to get to Europa is just consumed staying out of the Earth's atmosphere). And energy is not particularly hard or expensive to come by.
Have you seen the rockets built for voyager?
Launch the pieces of the vehicle and its propellant via rockets used today into LEO and assemble. Solar-electric propulsion with aerocapture maneuvers using Jupiter's atmosphere would work. I think the bigger problem would be coming up with the funding and a means to try out the technology. That is currently many orders of magnitude.
That 45-second figure on Mars sounds hyperbolic, since on good days, the rovers can actually go pretty far and take lots of pictures.
And on bad days, nothing happens, meaing it takes 0 seconds to do what was done. I think a good comparison here is between the Mars rovers and the corresponding manned lunar rovers of the Apollo program. They travel about the same distance. Apollo 17, for example, had three excursions of the lunar rover, each a bit over seven hours, for a total of somewhere around 22 hours of time on the Moon, the longest set of the Apollo program. They covered almost 36 km of distance over that time. The MER rover, Opportunity traveled a bit more than that over almost ten years.
So say about nine years to travel what the lunar rover did in 22 hours. Divide 22 hours by 9*365 and you get almost 25 seconds. I imagine the longer time of 45 seconds is because of the somewhat faster speeds of the MSL rover.
As to the scientific value of each, it's worth noting that the lunar missions were sample return with a considerable quantity of material returned. Any scientific comparison is going to strongly favor a sample return mission over missions that don't have sample return just because of the much higher value of returning samples for study on Earth.
Anyway, I'm all for space exploration, but people do not seem to understand how many orders of magnitude there are in distance between low-earth orbit (which is becoming routine, but still not "easy") and a moon of a planet that is halfway across the Solar system.
Those orders of magnitude of distance aren't particularly relevant. For example, the ISS travels at roughly 7.7 km/s relative to Earth. That's roughly 1.6 AU of distance every year. Europa averages 4.2 AU away. We can travel distances considerably longer than Europa in a human lifetime at velocities achievable in low Earth orbit.
I am constantly amazed at the lengths of rationalization that deniers go through to avoid actually reading any of the science.
BTW, I do read some research. But I don't see why that's relevant to the problem at hand.
Who decides the scope of Wall Street Journal editorials, and who decides what writings to include
That's pretty much decided by the owners of the WSJ, who have been mentioned several times. The difference between the WSJ and the IPCC reports is that the former isn't presented as a rigorous summary of all research in an important area of climatology and then proceeds to subvert that pretense for propaganda purposes.
As does my point. Society of the US is unable to accept the freedom of allowing people to use harmful recreational drugs on themselves. This loss of freedom leads to other harms as your morality play demonstrates.
Let's ask some simple questions here. Who decides the scope of the IPCC reports, the people who become authors and reviews for the reports, and who decides what writings to include - particular of the non-peer reviewed sort? These processes aren't transparent and they were done long before the Wall Street Journal blog article of which you appear to be so critical.
Why are "government representatives" involved? What do they bring that wouldn't be better achieved in their absence?
Who decides what what the high profile "executive summary" says and why isn't that process more transparent?
As a legitimate review of current climatology scientific literature, there's a lot that would be mysterious about how the IPCC report is constructed, even what it decides is part of its mandate.
But as a work of propaganda, these things are readily explained. In order to control the message, there must be filters to exclude or downplay undesired viewpoints or messages. And these filters have to be hidden from view so that the whole work retains an air of legitimacy. Hence, the need for a lack of transparency.
The report is to be released in ten days. The Wally wanted to put their spin in before the open and public process started, so they could spin the argument before everybody had the facts.
As I see, the open and public process is not in the creation of the report. As to the IPCC "summarizing" the "peer-reviewed literature", it's worth noting that the IPCC is first and foremost a political tool for justifying a variety of public spending themed around renewable energy and carbon dioxide reduction, such as renewable energy subsidies, carbon credit markets, wealth transfers from developed world to Third World, and public transportation. So any "summarizing" the IPCC will do will be oriented towards supporting such public spending. That is the nature of propaganda. Keep in mind that a large part of the "peer-reviewed literature" is also propaganda.
But as I implied, there are constraints to what the IPCC can claim. One of those constraints is that they can't claim something that will be obviously wrong with a little hindsight. That's why I pay attention to the bottom number for temperature sensitivity to a doubling of CO2. That can't be too high or the IPCC risks being discredited at a future time.
It also doesn't matter that "a lot" of coups and revolutions fail.
Yes, because if most such coups and revolutions utterly fail, then you need a different tool.
The greater whole of humanity still triumphed over bad regimes and bad bureaucracy.
Actually, if you look at history, they didn't. For example, China is a poster child for never getting out of that particular trap despite having a civilization many thousands of years long.
Slashdot Mirror
What happens when a human is not sure of what to do and he/she needs to wait for orders from earth, or earth needs to wait for the humans on mars to send data back to them.
You don't have it as often. Both humans and moderately advanced robotics can find things to do while they wait too.
Yes humans are just an expensive payload, but why use them when there are more cost effective payload options?
Currently, there aren't.
Humans have basically hit their computational limit.
It's not a computational problem and we're nowhere near any such limits of humans. Basically, we have at most a few weeks of Mars surface work and research for humans spread out over four decades.
So you run around telling the world you will use them only in defense AND wont sign a NFU as it "limits options" such as enless threats of using them?
I gather from your question mark that you have a question. So what is it? It's rather obvious that the best defense against a nuclear attack is to stop the attack before it starts. Preemptive nuclear strike is one way to attempt that.
You still have the fundamental problem of control and communication. Mars can be up to a light hour away and the outer Solar System is even worse. That's terrible when you're trying to operate machinery remotely and it also shows up in large delays when making any decisions about the activity in question.
Further, you need to deliver that computer to the destination and it'll need tools for doing its job. Those things aren't govern by Moore's law. For example, there's a certain minimal amount of infrastructure one needs in order to return a kilogram of rock to Earth or drill a few hundred meters into soil. Radiation hardening also creates a scale limitation. Make it too small then it breaks when it gets zapped by charged particles.
Humans are just another payload. While humans have quirks that make them somewhat more expensive than most payloads, computer/robotics systems will have many of these same quirks (such as sensitivity to radiation, need for a controlled environment, the need for resources such as energy and management of those resources, etc).
We do have many historical examples of violence against innocents, including a few from the US's Revolutionary War. But most war is not of that sort. It's violence that involves innocents, but it doesn't target them. For if it did, there'd be a lot more dead innocents than there have been.
My point is that I'm saddened that we will fight so hard to keep open the violent guns part of the constitution, but keep rolling over on the trampling of other amendments in the name of security.
While some people don't place the same importance on every bit of the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, it's worth noting here that people who tend to advocate violating the Second Amendment, tend to advocate breaking other amendments as well. My view is that there's nothing magical about the wording of the Second Amendment (that people had a right to bear arms). Anyone who can misinterpret that bit of law to their own advantage, can do the same for any other bit, such as the vaunted First Amendment.
One man alone can't rebel against any tyranny.
Sure, they can. It just means that they're very unlikely to fully succeed. But it is quite possible, for example, to cause far more damage than you can possibly receive. For example, we have two cases in recent years, the 9/11 attacks (which led to all these terrorism responses which you complain about) and the self-immolation death that triggered the Arab Spring (and the downfall of four governments so far). That latter case also didn't start with much in the way of organization. The guy in question apparently made a threat that he would burn himself, then he did it within the hour.
But that event was enough to knock Tunisia into an uncontrolled state with escalating riots that led within the month to the flight of the long time ruler of Tunisia to whoever would take him. It then spilled over into the rest of the Middle East and North Africa, taking down the governments of Egypt, Libya, and Yemen as well as triggering a nasty civil war in Syria.
Guy points out solar works in Germany, which is cloudier than America. Dude responds with talk about subsidies.
That's the obvious rebuttal, you know. Solar "works" there only because it is heavily subsidized. Once they take away those subsidies, it'll stop working except perhaps some niche cases.
Nuclear power may be in that boat too. Take away the subsidy of liability protection and those plants look a whole lot less attractive.
If you shills aren't being paid to engage in this clearly fallacious, goal-post-shifting, downright embarrassing display of contrarianism
Ok, so you're complaining about "goal-post-shifting" rather than addressing an obvious complaint.
Did the founding fathers really deal with or consider single perpetrator mass shootings? The closest thing I could think of would be bombings, and I don't know that the Second Amendment had anything in there about explosives.
They would have been aware of Guy Fawkes and the attempted bombing of the UK Parliament. And it's worth noting here that single perpetrator mass shootings don't actually kill that many people - especially when the would-be victims happen to be armed.
Of course, if we were that OK with the level of death, we shouldn't be anywhere near as freaked out about terrorism as we seem to be.
Well, I'm not particularly "freaked out", though I should note that the US has lost about as many people to the 911 terrorist attacks as to single perpetrator mass shootings.
Access to space is getting cheaper, but not access to labor.
Access to labor is a trivial cost once you have the infrastructure in place.
Labor is the reverse: people want to do less but get paid more over time.
You don't want that sort of person in a hazardous environment. They're likely to get themselves and others killed and damage valuable equipment.
Higher cost is a different argument. There we need to keep in mind that access to space is getting cheaper over time. It's a lot less expensive to do things in space now than it was in the 1970s.
That dynamic will change the relative costs of a manned mission versus unmanned missions. And given that the former do orders of magnitude more than the latter currently, we need to consider that the price can decline to the point where purely robotic missions no longer makes economic sense.
There is an implicit contract between all of us on how society works: that we give up some freedoms, as do our fellow citizens, in order to make society work.
I'm willing to call it a "cooperation". A "contract" implies things that don't exist here such as explicit terms and agreement to those terms.
The fact that it is not written down means that we can actually have different views of what is actually in the contract
Well, as long as we all agree on what that is, that's ok. Else this unwritten contract isn't worth the paper it's written on.
Writing things down fixes them, while society changes.
So what? There's no indication here that the cooperative aspects of our society changes. For example, the concerns of privacy haven't changed despite the changes in technology.
A prime example here is the Second Amendment: while not saying it is right or wrong, I am certain those who wrote and passed it did not foresee current firearms technology.
I think that's a dubious claim to make. All that has happened is that such firearms have become lighter, more reliable, and have a much faster firing rate. In other words, they've become better at the job they do. That's not hard to predict. And I'm fairly certain that the technology hasn't advanced to the point where original backers would have changed their minds.
I think of all the current political terms out there, "social contract" has to be one of the most worthless. It's a "contract" that you "agree" with by not trying to destroy society hard enough. It doesn't actually exist in any concrete form. And the terms of the supposed contract mean whatever the speaker feels they mean at the moment.
Let's store the next 30 years worth of excess carbon dioxide in huge underground chambers so that instead of gradual climate change that the environment can adjust to and compensate for we instead have a massive catastrophic climate change when one of those chambers springs a leak.
The rate of leakage would have to be greater than the original output in order for this to be a problem.
Well, you've posted a bunch and I just don't get the point. I apologize, but maybe I'll figure it out some other time.
People say that a lot for this sort of thing, but I don't think it's been done, except for the ISS. When Apollo was setup, just rendezvous of two different things was considered potentially impossible. Plus, what's the real advantage to this assemble in pieces, except for getting around the maximum lift capacity of modern rockets?
Aside from that very important thing of not requiring a huge, expensive rocket, it also reduces the risks from a launch failure. There's nothing on a spaceship, including its crew, that you can't have back ups of.
Second, there's nothing magical about assembling things in orbit. The ISS, for example, didn't have a particularly difficult time of it. And docking spacecraft with each other is becoming rather routine. That's another route to assembling things in orbit.
I maintain that LEO is 100 km... average distance to Jupiter is 8 million times further. 8 million
And I noted how irrelevant that observation is. You can just drift and all. I think it more significant, the time duration of the flight. Even with considerable propulsion power at their disposal, say nuclear propulsion, it's still a long trip. I can't see it becoming less than two years one way (Hohmann transfer trajectory with Jupiter is 2.75 years, you can hustle that a bit with better propulsion) without a substantial revolution in relatively affordable propulsion.
To get a lump of metal to arrive just requires amazing aim
Or course corrections.
to get a lump of meat there, I'd want more assurances
But of course. I'll just say that I doubt there's many people who think this group will get to the point of bending metal for actual space activities, much less the point where they have assurances to offer.
People had the freedom to choose. Losing their freedom was a consequence of their choice.
But it didn't have to be a consequence.
Going back to my first point, people continue to make more wrong choices instead of actually facing the consequences or doing something to reverse the wrong doing.
Or make wrong doing not wrong doing. There's a considerable parsimony of power to making something not illegal.
Sorry, it's been a little while. I meant the less aggressive technique of aerobraking which allows for multiple passes through atmosphere rather than aerocapture which attempts to shed all excess velocity in one go. You have to worry a bit more about Jupiter's nasty radiation environment with aerobraking, but that is at least something that has been well tried.
Except that you need to overcome the gravity well of earth and (parts of) the sun. Here, I have an illustrative xkcd refecence: http://xkcd.com/681_large/.
If you look at that particular diagram, you don't see "orders of magnitude" difference between Earth and Io especially once you including kinetic energy (a good portion of the energy required to get to Europa is just consumed staying out of the Earth's atmosphere). And energy is not particularly hard or expensive to come by.
Have you seen the rockets built for voyager?
Launch the pieces of the vehicle and its propellant via rockets used today into LEO and assemble. Solar-electric propulsion with aerocapture maneuvers using Jupiter's atmosphere would work. I think the bigger problem would be coming up with the funding and a means to try out the technology. That is currently many orders of magnitude.
That 45-second figure on Mars sounds hyperbolic, since on good days, the rovers can actually go pretty far and take lots of pictures.
And on bad days, nothing happens, meaing it takes 0 seconds to do what was done. I think a good comparison here is between the Mars rovers and the corresponding manned lunar rovers of the Apollo program. They travel about the same distance. Apollo 17, for example, had three excursions of the lunar rover, each a bit over seven hours, for a total of somewhere around 22 hours of time on the Moon, the longest set of the Apollo program. They covered almost 36 km of distance over that time. The MER rover, Opportunity traveled a bit more than that over almost ten years.
So say about nine years to travel what the lunar rover did in 22 hours. Divide 22 hours by 9*365 and you get almost 25 seconds. I imagine the longer time of 45 seconds is because of the somewhat faster speeds of the MSL rover.
As to the scientific value of each, it's worth noting that the lunar missions were sample return with a considerable quantity of material returned. Any scientific comparison is going to strongly favor a sample return mission over missions that don't have sample return just because of the much higher value of returning samples for study on Earth.
Anyway, I'm all for space exploration, but people do not seem to understand how many orders of magnitude there are in distance between low-earth orbit (which is becoming routine, but still not "easy") and a moon of a planet that is halfway across the Solar system.
Those orders of magnitude of distance aren't particularly relevant. For example, the ISS travels at roughly 7.7 km/s relative to Earth. That's roughly 1.6 AU of distance every year. Europa averages 4.2 AU away. We can travel distances considerably longer than Europa in a human lifetime at velocities achievable in low Earth orbit.
I am constantly amazed at the lengths of rationalization that deniers go through to avoid actually reading any of the science.
BTW, I do read some research. But I don't see why that's relevant to the problem at hand.
Who decides the scope of Wall Street Journal editorials, and who decides what writings to include
That's pretty much decided by the owners of the WSJ, who have been mentioned several times. The difference between the WSJ and the IPCC reports is that the former isn't presented as a rigorous summary of all research in an important area of climatology and then proceeds to subvert that pretense for propaganda purposes.
The point still stands
As does my point. Society of the US is unable to accept the freedom of allowing people to use harmful recreational drugs on themselves. This loss of freedom leads to other harms as your morality play demonstrates.
Let's ask some simple questions here. Who decides the scope of the IPCC reports, the people who become authors and reviews for the reports, and who decides what writings to include - particular of the non-peer reviewed sort? These processes aren't transparent and they were done long before the Wall Street Journal blog article of which you appear to be so critical.
Why are "government representatives" involved? What do they bring that wouldn't be better achieved in their absence?
Who decides what what the high profile "executive summary" says and why isn't that process more transparent?
As a legitimate review of current climatology scientific literature, there's a lot that would be mysterious about how the IPCC report is constructed, even what it decides is part of its mandate.
But as a work of propaganda, these things are readily explained. In order to control the message, there must be filters to exclude or downplay undesired viewpoints or messages. And these filters have to be hidden from view so that the whole work retains an air of legitimacy. Hence, the need for a lack of transparency.
What makes you think amateurs are more capable than professionals?
What makes you think government has the professionals? It's worth noting here that FEMA doesn't map things as part of its job.
The report is to be released in ten days. The Wally wanted to put their spin in before the open and public process started, so they could spin the argument before everybody had the facts.
As I see, the open and public process is not in the creation of the report. As to the IPCC "summarizing" the "peer-reviewed literature", it's worth noting that the IPCC is first and foremost a political tool for justifying a variety of public spending themed around renewable energy and carbon dioxide reduction, such as renewable energy subsidies, carbon credit markets, wealth transfers from developed world to Third World, and public transportation. So any "summarizing" the IPCC will do will be oriented towards supporting such public spending. That is the nature of propaganda. Keep in mind that a large part of the "peer-reviewed literature" is also propaganda.
But as I implied, there are constraints to what the IPCC can claim. One of those constraints is that they can't claim something that will be obviously wrong with a little hindsight. That's why I pay attention to the bottom number for temperature sensitivity to a doubling of CO2. That can't be too high or the IPCC risks being discredited at a future time.
It also doesn't matter that "a lot" of coups and revolutions fail.
Yes, because if most such coups and revolutions utterly fail, then you need a different tool.
The greater whole of humanity still triumphed over bad regimes and bad bureaucracy.
Actually, if you look at history, they didn't. For example, China is a poster child for never getting out of that particular trap despite having a civilization many thousands of years long.
when the consequence hurts me as well
In a society with free speech, you get a say even when that behavior is none of your business.