If I had to pick just one book it would be Demon Haunted World. If I could pick a second I would add Dawkin's "Unweaving The Rainbow" to counter the common belief that only the religious can trully appreciate the awe inspiring beauty of the Universe.
Also it's hard to go past Brownowski's "The Acsent of Man" for a general history of science.
Ahhh McDork my pet troll, you missed the fact that the hockey stick was from M.Mann the founder of the realclimate site in my link. I don't know what you hope to gain by the bullshit you post, does someone pay you? BTW: I see your links to trashy magazine columns and raise you a nature blog.
PS: Who was publishing when Copernicus was alive? Do you still beat your wife?
Exactly, "the past is another country", by liquidating his life (as much as pratical) he is drawing a clear line between future and past, I like to call it the "born again" adult syndrome. Speaking from experience and observation, the first year or five after a bitter divorce there is a strong desire to cash in and do nothing but travel and bonk other "born again adults" until you either, get used to the "new country" and settle down again, or the cash runs out and forces you to stop. Since there are no kids I say good luck to him (and considering the housing market, he will need it).
I have provided you with pertinent links, you have failed to do likewise.
As I implied in my previous post "extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence", your insults don't change that nor do your assertions provide any evidence.
As for debunking your mass of dis-information I will pick on one thing at randon since I have better things to do than argue with a troll. The cooling of the troposphere is predicted by climate models and has been observed in the field, either provide a link to a scientific paper that contradicts the IPCC or STFU.
It's not my personal concept of 'respect', it's simply a fact of life that the strong don't get forced to do anything. At it's extreme the weak must respect the court/crown/church/emporer/president/grand poohbah/etc or die. At it's most basic, a dog "rolling over" for the pack leader. I have no idea how my world differs from yours but from my POV international politics since WW1 has rarely risen above the level of global fuedalisim and thus a big bomb gets you into the most powerfull 'club'.
"If having nukes got you respect, USA would be a tad more popular, don't you think?"
Only if your definition of respect has something to do with popularity, mine doesn't.
Here in Australia it also works in a similar manner to what the AC post said about the states, I assume it comes from English common law but I don't know for sure. OTOH, you are correct that a convicted person (who has exhasted the appeal process) has no right to bail, however neither I nor TFA imply that is the case here?
BTW: I'm a big fan of law and order but learning law from watching it is like learning science from watching star trek.
Beside hopelessly confusing weather and climate, you have also been mislead about the UN. The IPCC reports are here, you can talk directly to some of the scientists who contributed to the report here. An attribution graph showing the contributions of man to both warming (GHG) and cooling (mainly sulphates) can be found in the IPCC's 2007 SPM or you could have a look at this one.
Now please realise that the IPCC does not come up with new science, it is a UN body that gathers scientists from every national science body on the planet and reviews published scientific papers. They do not have ONE report they have ~20yrs worth of reports.
Assuming you are not just a rabid anti-science troll can you please post some evidence for your claims such as...
ALL greenhouse gas "global warming" theories require the upper atmosphere to warm proportionally to the surface temperature....the greenhouse warming models allow for local, temporary variations, but NOT for a record cold hemisphere...the UN has retracted their famous, hysterical report about greenhouse warming...Some of the very scientists who were quoted in that IPCC report tried to get their names removed
Note: I work on the same basis as the IPCC, ie: I only accept evidence that is backed by peer-reviewed publications.
The reason you get modded to hell is obvious to this 50yo geek and was politely explained by the GP.
The fact you think space exploration is a waste of time is your opinion, the way you state that opinion is 95% pure troll/flamebait. The unwashed masses of slashdotter do not have a personal grudge against you, you seem incapable of communicating contrary ideas without spewing bile at the same time.
Also your original post is flat out wrong...
"All the bad things about climate change, economic collapse, and overpopulation are happening here and now. The ability to use space exploration technology to address these problems won't be realistic for hundreds of years, if ever."
Space exploration may not fix these problems but how did we find out about them? The effects of AGW and overpopulation have been measured for the last 30-40yrs using space programs such as landsat. As the GP suggested you cannot seperate science into little piles of factoids and then only fund the piles you want to grow, science is both a body of knowledge AND a way of thinking.
"The problem with environmentalists is that they don't want to change the environment. If there is a desert, it must be preserved. If there is a glacier, it should stop melting."
Actually those people are called conservationists and in many cases they have a valid point.
I am not claiming everything is our fault, nor do I want everything to stay the same, nor do I think replacing 80% of FF with renewables in 50yrs is "overnight". However we are definitely shitting in our own nest and starting to suffer the side-effects of that habit. Iron dust while interesting and an intergral part of the biosphere is simply not practical in a geo-engineering sense, particularly when the aim is to cut emmissions by 7 BILLION tons year by mid-century. But hey, if you think it is then consider my link as an investment tip.
BTW: Fishstocks need time to rebuild, probably the best part of a century in the N. hemisphere.
"Isn't it global anti-trust to sell a product for less in one country than you do another? Is there such a thing? Who would bring down the hammer on such things?"
The closest thing to it would be anti-dumping laws but selling at different prices in different areas is not against the law in most countries, check out prices at the same supermarket chain in different parts of your city. Implementing and monitoring such laws for all goods and services would bring down the hammer, unfortunately it would land on the economy.
"You mean kind of how you must KNOW that hemp/cannabis is the most horrible plant on the planet?"
Please don't put words in my mouth. I would suggest you have a look at the actual science rather than what is reported in tabloids, you will be surprised to find it's largely "on your side". The laws on dope were invented and are still driven by the politics and corruption of prohibitionists. Other than that I have no idea how your angry post relates to what I said?
"accredited scientists"
The word you are looking for is "published" not "accredited", amatures are well represented in some fields of science, astronomy being the classic example. Science is simply formalized critical thinking, a method of enquiry that you can learn, practice and observe in others, it is not just a mass of WP style factoids, nor is it the path to an absolute truth that in all likelyhood doesn't exist.
"you will believe as you're told"
Look into the philosophy and history of science and you might just start to appreciate the irony of that quote. OTOH if you have discovered some as yet unknown method to question and expand what you 'know' about the world around you, I for one would love to hear it.
Here is a link to a review of the idea, the site is run by some well published climate scientists who have contributed to the IPCC reports over the roughly two decades the project has been running. Their conclusion regarding the application of the idea....
"I would put ocean fertilization on the avoid list, along with planting trees. It's too hard to pin down the actual amount of CO2 removed from the atmosphere by your actions. It's also not a long-term solution, since the ocean leaks. Humankind would have to keep fertilizing the ocean indefinitely in order to preserve the claimed CO2 drawdown. If you're concerned about climate change, build a windmill. Ocean fertilization does not seem to me suitable to be the basis for a reliable financial commodity, or a practical tool for geo-engineering climate."
I also happen to agree with the tree thing when it comes to implementing a cap and trade system for CO2. As he says himself elsewhere, trees are worth preserving for other reasons.
I don't dispute the fact that iron dust can increase phytoplankton but I certainly dispute the claim that dumping iron into the ocean is a practical solution to AGW. Unless of course the iron is in the form of a machine that can harvest power from the tides, winds or waves of the ocean.
If you haven't done so I would suggest you read (or at least spend a half hour to skim) the IPCC reports, particularly the latest SPM and the attribution graph. (Note: The IPCC does not come up with it's own science, rather it is a review of the published litrature. All reviewers and authors of the reprots are published scientists in a relevant field, every national science body on the planet is represented by a scientist. IMHO getting this many boffins and scientific institutions to agree on anything would tend to indicate the reports are on the conservative side.)
"Why do people get so defensive about these topics?"
Personally? I don't like to see people taken for a ride due to deliberate misinformation, I also don't like the outright hostility toward "environmentalists" from the US administration that goes unquestioned by many of it's citizens. The only scientific debate I have witnessed that comes close to the political perversion of the AGW debate is the tabacoo debate that went from the 60s thru to the late 80's. In some instances it's even the same people spreading the bull$hit. I realise AGW is not the only problem in the world, nor is it the worst. But it's one of a handfull of serious threats to ALL of us and we can choose to do something sensible about it. My personal choice for the number one threat? - ignorance.
I was speaking about what I thought was the moral of the story the first time I read it, I was just out of HS and pretty much all I knew about Russia was that they were supposed to be the bad guys. I agree that Orwell took his inspiration from real world events and people but I think he also painted a broader picture of power, corruption and ignorance. IMHO 1984, AF and The Time Machine can all be seen as cautionary tales about how easily the "ignorant masses" can be herded and slaughtered.
Protip: Check your own breath for the smell of shit before accusing others of talking out their biased arse.
Had you used the scollbar in the 'timeline' box of your BBC link you would have known India's first test was in 1974.
Since your own link disagrees with your insult riddled post, which of the following are true...
A. The BBC is an 'incredibly biased source'.
B. You are just another obnoxious arsehole who is incapable of reasonable debate.
C. You thought a quick scan of the BBC would make up for your poor understanding of the subject.
Slashdot Mirror
If I had to pick just one book it would be Demon Haunted World. If I could pick a second I would add Dawkin's "Unweaving The Rainbow" to counter the common belief that only the religious can trully appreciate the awe inspiring beauty of the Universe.
Also it's hard to go past Brownowski's "The Acsent of Man" for a general history of science.
Judging by some of the stuff I read on slashdot a large number of posters would fail all 4 criteria.
Ahhh McDork my pet troll, you missed the fact that the hockey stick was from M.Mann the founder of the realclimate site in my link. I don't know what you hope to gain by the bullshit you post, does someone pay you? BTW: I see your links to trashy magazine columns and raise you a nature blog.
PS: Who was publishing when Copernicus was alive? Do you still beat your wife?
Exactly, "the past is another country", by liquidating his life (as much as pratical) he is drawing a clear line between future and past, I like to call it the "born again" adult syndrome. Speaking from experience and observation, the first year or five after a bitter divorce there is a strong desire to cash in and do nothing but travel and bonk other "born again adults" until you either, get used to the "new country" and settle down again, or the cash runs out and forces you to stop. Since there are no kids I say good luck to him (and considering the housing market, he will need it).
Dislaimer: Married 1980, divorced 1999.
I have provided you with pertinent links, you have failed to do likewise.
As I implied in my previous post "extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence", your insults don't change that nor do your assertions provide any evidence.
As for debunking your mass of dis-information I will pick on one thing at randon since I have better things to do than argue with a troll. The cooling of the troposphere is predicted by climate models and has been observed in the field, either provide a link to a scientific paper that contradicts the IPCC or STFU.
"I think he's up there now, smiling down at us."
And God is patting him on the back saying: "Thanks for trying to clear up the 10 commandments thing".
It's not my personal concept of 'respect', it's simply a fact of life that the strong don't get forced to do anything. At it's extreme the weak must respect the court/crown/church/emporer/president/grand poohbah/etc or die. At it's most basic, a dog "rolling over" for the pack leader. I have no idea how my world differs from yours but from my POV international politics since WW1 has rarely risen above the level of global fuedalisim and thus a big bomb gets you into the most powerfull 'club'.
"If having nukes got you respect, USA would be a tad more popular, don't you think?"
Only if your definition of respect has something to do with popularity, mine doesn't.
Here in Australia it also works in a similar manner to what the AC post said about the states, I assume it comes from English common law but I don't know for sure. OTOH, you are correct that a convicted person (who has exhasted the appeal process) has no right to bail, however neither I nor TFA imply that is the case here?
BTW: I'm a big fan of law and order but learning law from watching it is like learning science from watching star trek.
"Why should I cater to your ignorance and do your homework for you? The subject and the data are all over the internet.."
Why? Because you are the one making "extrodinary claims", or are we throwing out that part of science aswell?
As for the rest of your post, you need to update your form letter, google no longer works in your favour.
Beside hopelessly confusing weather and climate, you have also been mislead about the UN. The IPCC reports are here, you can talk directly to some of the scientists who contributed to the report here. An attribution graph showing the contributions of man to both warming (GHG) and cooling (mainly sulphates) can be found in the IPCC's 2007 SPM or you could have a look at this one.
Now please realise that the IPCC does not come up with new science, it is a UN body that gathers scientists from every national science body on the planet and reviews published scientific papers. They do not have ONE report they have ~20yrs worth of reports.
Assuming you are not just a rabid anti-science troll can you please post some evidence for your claims such as...
ALL greenhouse gas "global warming" theories require the upper atmosphere to warm proportionally to the surface temperature....the greenhouse warming models allow for local, temporary variations, but NOT for a record cold hemisphere...the UN has retracted their famous, hysterical report about greenhouse warming...Some of the very scientists who were quoted in that IPCC report tried to get their names removed
Note: I work on the same basis as the IPCC, ie: I only accept evidence that is backed by peer-reviewed publications.
" I will be surprised if he receives any prison time at all"
According to TFS he is already in jail and they are demanding $50K bail, it's already in the "insane" category.
The reason you get modded to hell is obvious to this 50yo geek and was politely explained by the GP.
The fact you think space exploration is a waste of time is your opinion, the way you state that opinion is 95% pure troll/flamebait. The unwashed masses of slashdotter do not have a personal grudge against you, you seem incapable of communicating contrary ideas without spewing bile at the same time.
Also your original post is flat out wrong...
"All the bad things about climate change, economic collapse, and overpopulation are happening here and now. The ability to use space exploration technology to address these problems won't be realistic for hundreds of years, if ever."
Space exploration may not fix these problems but how did we find out about them? The effects of AGW and overpopulation have been measured for the last 30-40yrs using space programs such as landsat. As the GP suggested you cannot seperate science into little piles of factoids and then only fund the piles you want to grow, science is both a body of knowledge AND a way of thinking.
"The problem with environmentalists is that they don't want to change the environment. If there is a desert, it must be preserved. If there is a glacier, it should stop melting."
Actually those people are called conservationists and in many cases they have a valid point.
I am not claiming everything is our fault, nor do I want everything to stay the same, nor do I think replacing 80% of FF with renewables in 50yrs is "overnight". However we are definitely shitting in our own nest and starting to suffer the side-effects of that habit. Iron dust while interesting and an intergral part of the biosphere is simply not practical in a geo-engineering sense, particularly when the aim is to cut emmissions by 7 BILLION tons year by mid-century. But hey, if you think it is then consider my link as an investment tip.
BTW: Fishstocks need time to rebuild, probably the best part of a century in the N. hemisphere.
"Isn't it global anti-trust to sell a product for less in one country than you do another? Is there such a thing? Who would bring down the hammer on such things?"
The closest thing to it would be anti-dumping laws but selling at different prices in different areas is not against the law in most countries, check out prices at the same supermarket chain in different parts of your city. Implementing and monitoring such laws for all goods and services would bring down the hammer, unfortunately it would land on the economy.
Yes it looks and quacks like a duck, but it walks like Montgomery Burns.
"Microsoft obviously has a complete monopoly in Win32 ABI compatible OS's"
ABI - Application Bluescreen Interface?
...lives will be saved, OTOH it also increases the likelyhood of a traffic jam of storm chasers in the the exact spot "the finger of God" lands.
"You mean kind of how you must KNOW that hemp/cannabis is the most horrible plant on the planet?"
Please don't put words in my mouth. I would suggest you have a look at the actual science rather than what is reported in tabloids, you will be surprised to find it's largely "on your side". The laws on dope were invented and are still driven by the politics and corruption of prohibitionists. Other than that I have no idea how your angry post relates to what I said?
"accredited scientists"
The word you are looking for is "published" not "accredited", amatures are well represented in some fields of science, astronomy being the classic example. Science is simply formalized critical thinking, a method of enquiry that you can learn, practice and observe in others, it is not just a mass of WP style factoids, nor is it the path to an absolute truth that in all likelyhood doesn't exist.
"you will believe as you're told"
Look into the philosophy and history of science and you might just start to appreciate the irony of that quote. OTOH if you have discovered some as yet unknown method to question and expand what you 'know' about the world around you, I for one would love to hear it.
Seriously...
Here is a link to a review of the idea, the site is run by some well published climate scientists who have contributed to the IPCC reports over the roughly two decades the project has been running. Their conclusion regarding the application of the idea....
"I would put ocean fertilization on the avoid list, along with planting trees. It's too hard to pin down the actual amount of CO2 removed from the atmosphere by your actions. It's also not a long-term solution, since the ocean leaks. Humankind would have to keep fertilizing the ocean indefinitely in order to preserve the claimed CO2 drawdown. If you're concerned about climate change, build a windmill. Ocean fertilization does not seem to me suitable to be the basis for a reliable financial commodity, or a practical tool for geo-engineering climate."
I also happen to agree with the tree thing when it comes to implementing a cap and trade system for CO2. As he says himself elsewhere, trees are worth preserving for other reasons.
I don't dispute the fact that iron dust can increase phytoplankton but I certainly dispute the claim that dumping iron into the ocean is a practical solution to AGW. Unless of course the iron is in the form of a machine that can harvest power from the tides, winds or waves of the ocean.
If you haven't done so I would suggest you read (or at least spend a half hour to skim) the IPCC reports, particularly the latest SPM and the attribution graph. (Note: The IPCC does not come up with it's own science, rather it is a review of the published litrature. All reviewers and authors of the reprots are published scientists in a relevant field, every national science body on the planet is represented by a scientist. IMHO getting this many boffins and scientific institutions to agree on anything would tend to indicate the reports are on the conservative side.)
"Why do people get so defensive about these topics?"
Personally? I don't like to see people taken for a ride due to deliberate misinformation, I also don't like the outright hostility toward "environmentalists" from the US administration that goes unquestioned by many of it's citizens. The only scientific debate I have witnessed that comes close to the political perversion of the AGW debate is the tabacoo debate that went from the 60s thru to the late 80's. In some instances it's even the same people spreading the bull$hit. I realise AGW is not the only problem in the world, nor is it the worst. But it's one of a handfull of serious threats to ALL of us and we can choose to do something sensible about it. My personal choice for the number one threat? - ignorance.
I was speaking about what I thought was the moral of the story the first time I read it, I was just out of HS and pretty much all I knew about Russia was that they were supposed to be the bad guys. I agree that Orwell took his inspiration from real world events and people but I think he also painted a broader picture of power, corruption and ignorance. IMHO 1984, AF and The Time Machine can all be seen as cautionary tales about how easily the "ignorant masses" can be herded and slaughtered.
I'm not an anarchist but my lawn is booby trapped. :o
"It's an important book to read - it's on the school curriculum in most western nations."
Yes, I first read 1984 at high school circa 1974. I think you need to bear in mind that the OP looks like an attempt at insightfull humour.
OT Trivia: In the appendix of my old copy it says (paraphrase) "C is a precise language used only by technocrats".
"Obviously you've never had soylent greens..."
What sort of meat comes with the greens?
Funny thing, I thought Animal Farm was about democracy failing due to an uneducated public.
Protip: Check your own breath for the smell of shit before accusing others of talking out their biased arse.
Had you used the scollbar in the 'timeline' box of your BBC link you would have known India's first test was in 1974.
Since your own link disagrees with your insult riddled post, which of the following are true...
A. The BBC is an 'incredibly biased source'.
B. You are just another obnoxious arsehole who is incapable of reasonable debate.
C. You thought a quick scan of the BBC would make up for your poor understanding of the subject.