Does anyone know if this feature works outside the U.S.? Overseas? If the country the phone is (lost) in does not have Google Maps (like Vietnam) will it just give a geographic coordinate (latitude and longitude)? Does anyone know if Mobile me will work on a "hacked" iPhone? Unfortunately that's the only kind that works here! Can the Mobile Me feature be disabled completely by a thief? (I know that the location finding aspect can be disabled by turning off location services, sorry if I spilled the beans). Is it protected by a password? Will it survive SIM removal/replacement? Will it survive a complete OS replacement (I guess not)? Thanks for any and all answers to these questions!
I won't spoil this but if you haven't seen the episode of the Simpson's where Bart is "helped" by Homer to compete in a robot competition you absolutely must. I think it was one of the funniest episodes EVER at least for us slashdotters. (Funnier even than the treehouse of horrors!).
Has anyone ever been caught "participating" in one of these events in the way Homer did?
In the book "Ender's Game" by Orson Scott Card, Ender keeps exploring the super video game the kids are given beyond what anyone else does. Since the game "engine" is very sophisticated it keeps generating new territory and challenges for him (sometimes based on his alien influenced "dreams"). Not only does he eventually successfully complete his self-driven quest but the computer creating the game becomes sentient! Of course this is just one of several important "games" in the book.
So, maybe if you go places in your videogame that you're not supposed to go, you'll create new territory not imagined by the designers of the game and cause the game to become self-aware!
The written form of Korean was invented by a King Sejong sometime in the 16th century I think. He hired a bunch of scholars who devised a simplified phonetic language (as opposed to the ideographic Chinese characters they were using). That's why Korean looks really really different from Chinese, the characters are supposedly designed to represent the throat and tongue configuration needed to pronounce the character.
He forced the populace (under pain of death?) to use it but it worked, literacy rates shot up. All Koreans now use it North and South (but with some Chinese characters used occasionally) and King Sejong is widely revered, I believe he's on South Korean currency (Kim Jong-Il is probably on the North, surprise).
im replying to this point because my finger slipped when I was moderating and I gave it the wrong moderation point! By posting I'm hoping the system will remove my errant moderation point. (there's no undo I think for moderation points).
I think the best solution would be if Atlantis could be brought back by autopilot. If the damage is marginal (that is they THINK it might destroy the shuttle but are not sure) then bringing it back unmanned would give you the possibility (if the damage is survivable) of recouping your billion dollar plus investment.
The problem is that I am not sure that the shuttles have autolanding capability. The astronauts may have lobbied to keep NASA from giving the shuttles the ability to land themselves (or via ground control) in an attempt to keep pilots from being made irrelevant. (Throwback to test-pilot days I guess). Does anyone know if the shuttle can be landed without a human crew?
thanks, also the previous poster (why is the comment hidden) pointed out the wikipedia article on the JWST but it said amongst other things servicing provisions are still under consideration (2008).
My big fear is that the launch doesn't go successfully, having a multi-billion dollar spacecraft dependent on a foreign launch vehicle makes me nervous. Maybe that's why they fought over the launch decision to use the (free) Ariane V for two years. I'm very happy Kepler went off okay very unhappy about the Orbiting Carbon Observatory.
So, when the JWST was designed Orion (and the launch vehicles Ares I and Ares V) weren't on the drawing boards.
Does anyone know if Orion will be able to service it? Since it's being designed for flights to the moon, L2 isn't that much further away is it? So the amount of supplies it needs to carry shouldn't be a problem and the reentry capsule should be able to handle the 25,000 mph return. However would the mission be too dangerous in terms of radiation exposure?
Have provisions been made on the JWST since to allow for removal/change of the instruments/gyroscopes like Hubble? What about docking ports or grappling interfaces?
Who knows? I don't, I'm neither a physicist nor do I know anything about the material's properties (or whether they can be improved upon sufficiently). I wish someone more qualified would point out the "holes" in my suggestion!
What about my aerogel idea? Again, if you could put a really huge block of it in space (it would have to be able to be manufactured there) wouldn't that work as well or better?
The net, overall will be very large and weigh thousands of kilograms or more and will definitely absorb the smaller fragments with impunity These little fragments could otherwise be the hardest to "catch" in a reasonable fashion because they are so numerous and multiplying the quickest after every collision. Also, if you slowly spin the net, it will remain open and not wad up.
You are right about the really large "fragments" (boosters, complete satellites) however they are relatively few in number and could possibly be dealt with in a more individual fashion. I'm thinking the net will be used to get the millions of smaller items. Anyway wasn't there some Japanese anime about a space trash man who's job was to get those bigger objects?
The fact that it is "strong as steel" and "light as air" seems to me like it could be made into a (very) big net that, when launched into orbit could capture space junk. Hopefully the fact that it stretches 200% could mean that it would have enough elasticity to absorb some of the kinetic energy of the space junk.
As long as the space junk didn't make holes in it, it would slow the junk enough so that they would fall out of orbit quickly. (Maybe the impact of a lot of junk would require periodic re-boosting of the net, I don't know.)
Another idea would be to use AEROGELS. This super lightweight material has already been proven to slow down hyper velocity objects (admittedly just particles) in the spacecraft "Stardust". The main problem with aerogels would be launching it into orbit, although it is very light the necessary volume required would be huge. However, if it could be manufactured in space then just a small amount of raw material could make a gigantic volume of the stuff.
So will it be a computer running a "traditional" OS with the whole Windows, Icons, Mouse Pointer interface or will Apple make it a big iPhone like device that hides a lot of that stuff under a (relatively) minimalist user interface?
Part of me wants the WIMP paradigm because of the additional control I have over files and folders but part of me wants to see how far you can take an interface based from the ground up on a purely touch interface (like the iPhone). [I think the advantage of a iPhone interface is that it is even simpler than a WIMP interface, no need to explain about files or directories etc. Great for the rest of... err.. them, like my mom!]
Speaking of user interfaces, did anyone catch the new "Voice over" feature in the new iPod Shuffle? It seems this might be another (relatively) unexplored user interface design where a visual user interface is not available. Will this be incorporated into other Apple products (like multi-touch was transported from the iPhone to the MacBook touchpads?).
I say "relatively" because obviously voice/audio cue interfaces are not new (every voice mail system uses them) but this is the first time I've seen it in a portable device.
If aerogels can be made in space (without the need for the heavy supercritical fluid needed to make it on earth or if there is some way to recycle the fluid) you could cheaply launch very large volumes of a substance that would have the ability to absorb momentum from colliding objects. This would either result in the object being embedded in the aerogel (if it was small relative to the aerogel) or the object would punch through it but still end up being decelerated (if the object was large but still small enough not to destroy the aerogel).
This is of course the material that was used in NASA's stardust mission which picked up cometary material while passing by it at a very high relative velocity. (25,000+ mph?). The (tiny) cometary particles became embedded in the aerogel.
If you can scale this up substantially you should be able to capture or at least decelerate much larger objects. Of course this means your aerogel would have to be very large and thick but since it is the lightest material known to man the launch costs would be very low IF YOU COULD MAKE IT IN ORBIT. Having a very large piece of aerogel also increases its cross section which is very desirable because you'll eventually want to basically sweep up ALL the objects in earth orbit that can cause harm (like paint chips, etc.) and not just the ones that are large enough to be tracked.
I believe aerogels are used for micrometeoroid protection on the ISS.
An interesting question (assuming this worked) would be; if there were semi-random impacts on a large orbiting "sponge" as it were would this cause the sponge itself to de-orbit? (Of courses you could periodically reboost it). Or would the impacts from all directions cancel each other out? I say "semi-random" because even the debris from orbital collisions probably have some "bias" in their motion, for example most satellites were launched towards the east to gain angular momentum from the earth's spin.
I'm actually much more intrigued by the statement at the end of the article in Space.com about the nuclear powered rover they intend to land on the moon.
Interesting (if true) that they didn't just put on solar panels (will the rover be used during the lunar night?).
If they are willing to use nuclear power (probably just RTGs) for such a relatively modest application (except for an experiment or two the Apollo astronauts left on the moon I don't think any nuclear power was ever used there) will they be using nukes for more applications in their space program?
Nuclear power (first as RTGs, then as full fledged reactors) will REALLY give their spacecraft an order of magnitude more capability than solar powered ones. The Russian radar satellites used to locate American carrier groups used nukes (and one crashed in Canada!). If the Chinese are willing to take the risk (our collective risk?) for using nukes in space what kind of benefits will they obtain?
Certainly, for some military applications a small, compact nuclear power plant might be a better power source than large vulnerable solar cells. (though the reactor would likely need radiator fins).
Ok, ok, as I've said before in other comments maybe I overdid it.
But I'm still concerned that we're getting close to some serious feedback issues with the climate (permafrost melting, ocean carbon sinks saturating). I know that they can rebuild it in less than the 7 years it took to make the first one but even so it'll be years and maybe they'll try launching it on the Taurus again!
I really thought OCO was going to give us much more detailed CO2 data than the Japanese satellite. If I'm wrong then you're right I am overstating it.
You do know that Americans like you (you are an American right?) is the reason why Americans will be speaking Chinese in about 50 years. That is unless Obama can save your butt.
Humanity's been around for a long time. We've all had the basics (simple agriculture, fire, writing, legal systems) for millenia. Some peoples built some rather large civilizations using that (Romans, Egyptions, Mayans, Khmer, Chinese) but as a whole, life for most people (the 95% who worked in the fields) was the same for everyone in every age. Life was brutish and short.
Then, a couple guys in Northern Europe (no I'm not remotely descended from them), said: "Hey, instead of guessing about the natural world, why don't we observe it, and make theories to predict it? And then, IF OUR PREDICTIONS ARE CORRECT, we'll have learned something. Something that will work EVERY TIME or if it doesn't we'll REVISE OUR THEORY.
That's what separates us from the ancients. Democracy? The greeks tried it long time ago. Merchants? The Chinese and the Romans had some pretty good trading networks. Religion? Well the Jews had a good monotheistic religion way back. No, the fact that you and I are exchanging messages on a world wide network that is storing a good fraction of humanities knowledge is due to SCIENCE and the accumulated knowledge that came from that.
I will follow my doctor's advice (or the majority if my second opinion doesn't agree)
I will follow the instructions of the cabin attendants (while kissing my butt goodbye)
I will follow their instructions unless it looks like suicide (no kamikaze pilot I). Basically I'm fucked
I will follow what the climatologists say is the rational way to get out or AMELIORATE this problem. I would most certainly HELP THEM GET MORE DATA (which is why losing the OSO pisses me off). If I'm a snowflake, I guess I'll just melt.
What exactly are you suggesting I do? We (should?) play the cards we are dealt with in the best (most rational) way we can.
You're absolutely right when you say that Science isn't about voting on truth. Best example I can think of plate tectonics; the guy who promoted that was derided as a loony because "continents don't move".
But then a funny thing happened. More and more data came up to support him. First the fossil similarities on both sides of the atlantic. Then the mid atlantic ridge. Finally, if it wasn't already proven in almost all geologists minds, they found the active spreading.
That's the thing about science. Sure you might be the underdog but the "truth" will win out in the end. It has to, because nature is always right. The problem with this Spencer guy (sorry, never heard of him) is that with more and more data being collected (alas not from the OCO) there are more and more climatologists believing in man-made warming. No good scientist will say they are 100% certain (look at the ICC report, it is all in probabilities) on such a complex issue but it is apparent that the evidence is getting stronger not weaker. Again, maybe Spencer is a genius but he'll have to prove it. If he does, he'll be famous like the guy who came up with tectonic drift ("I" don't know his name but I'm sure just about every geologist does!).
Actually it's funny that you mentioned Spencer. I followed the Wikipedia link and briefly skimmed his bio. You mention that the last two paragraphs of what I wrote is "Not relevant". After reading Spencer's bio it's so relevant it's funny! I was going to say that everybody has an opinion and sometimes that opinion can't be changed by facts no matter how strong. That's called BELIEF. Without reading Spencer's bio an inch further, I'll bet you he's some sort of fundamentalist or born again Christian. Why? Because he's got all this evidence staring him in the face on global warming (and supposedly evolution) and he draws the opposite conclusion that 95% of his colleagues do. YOU CAN'T CHANGE SOMEONE'S MIND IF IT'S CLOSED. So I have to thank you, you've proved that my last two paragraphs are Very relevant!
Look, even though I've researched these issues (much?) more than the average person, once again, I'm not a climatologist. At some point, everyone in this world has to trust other people, there is simply too much information for one person to understand it all (the last person in history who is thought to have known everything at the time was Sir Francis Bacon).
So, who do you trust? Well if I have a serious illness, I'll trust my doctor/surgeon. If I'm on a plane I'll trust my pilot. If I'm a soldier in a war I'll trust my general. If I'm a general (who wants to make sure the bombs will go off) I'll trust my scientists. Basically, the vast consensus of scientists working in climatology think we're headed for (man-made) trouble.
If a climatologist told me that my computer processor was inefficient I might disregard him, or if my neurologist told me that concrete was a poorer building material than steel I might ignore him. But these are people who've specialized and studied a long time in their respective fields. While science has certainly gone into blind alleys, it has, over time proven its accuracy in describing the real world. (Read about life in the middle ages).
I don't know anything about your anecdote regarding Greenland, the only one I know is that the Vikings named Greenland "Green" land to fool people to think it was valuable (when they really colonized Iceland). Still I hope you don't base your life around anecdotes; for example I hope you don't believe in not vaccinating your kids because you've heard it causes autism.
Slashdot Mirror
thanks for the info! I hope it works here (with a jailbroken phone).
Does anyone know if this feature works outside the U.S.? Overseas? If the country the phone is (lost) in does not have Google Maps (like Vietnam) will it just give a geographic coordinate (latitude and longitude)?
Does anyone know if Mobile me will work on a "hacked" iPhone? Unfortunately that's the only kind that works here!
Can the Mobile Me feature be disabled completely by a thief? (I know that the location finding aspect can be disabled by turning off location services, sorry if I spilled the beans). Is it protected by a password? Will it survive SIM removal/replacement? Will it survive a complete OS replacement (I guess not)?
Thanks for any and all answers to these questions!
I won't spoil this but if you haven't seen the episode of the Simpson's where Bart is "helped" by Homer to compete in a robot competition you absolutely must. I think it was one of the funniest episodes EVER at least for us slashdotters. (Funnier even than the treehouse of horrors!).
Has anyone ever been caught "participating" in one of these events in the way Homer did?
In the book "Ender's Game" by Orson Scott Card, Ender keeps exploring the super video game the kids are given beyond what anyone else does. Since the game "engine" is very sophisticated it keeps generating new territory and challenges for him (sometimes based on his alien influenced "dreams"). Not only does he eventually successfully complete his self-driven quest but the computer creating the game becomes sentient! Of course this is just one of several important "games" in the book.
So, maybe if you go places in your videogame that you're not supposed to go, you'll create new territory not imagined by the designers of the game and cause the game to become self-aware!
The written form of Korean was invented by a King Sejong sometime in the 16th century I think. He hired a bunch of scholars who devised a simplified phonetic language (as opposed to the ideographic Chinese characters they were using). That's why Korean looks really really different from Chinese, the characters are supposedly designed to represent the throat and tongue configuration needed to pronounce the character.
He forced the populace (under pain of death?) to use it but it worked, literacy rates shot up. All Koreans now use it North and South (but with some Chinese characters used occasionally) and King Sejong is widely revered, I believe he's on South Korean currency (Kim Jong-Il is probably on the North, surprise).
im replying to this point because my finger slipped when I was moderating and I gave it the wrong moderation point! By posting I'm hoping the system will remove my errant moderation point. (there's no undo I think for moderation points).
I think the best solution would be if Atlantis could be brought back by autopilot. If the damage is marginal (that is they THINK it might destroy the shuttle but are not sure) then bringing it back unmanned would give you the possibility (if the damage is survivable) of recouping your billion dollar plus investment.
The problem is that I am not sure that the shuttles have autolanding capability. The astronauts may have lobbied to keep NASA from giving the shuttles the ability to land themselves (or via ground control) in an attempt to keep pilots from being made irrelevant. (Throwback to test-pilot days I guess). Does anyone know if the shuttle can be landed without a human crew?
thanks, also the previous poster (why is the comment hidden) pointed out the wikipedia article on the JWST but it said amongst other things servicing provisions are still under consideration (2008).
My big fear is that the launch doesn't go successfully, having a multi-billion dollar spacecraft dependent on a foreign launch vehicle makes me nervous. Maybe that's why they fought over the launch decision to use the (free) Ariane V for two years. I'm very happy Kepler went off okay very unhappy about the Orbiting Carbon Observatory.
So, when the JWST was designed Orion (and the launch vehicles Ares I and Ares V) weren't on the drawing boards.
Does anyone know if Orion will be able to service it? Since it's being designed for flights to the moon, L2 isn't that much further away is it? So the amount of supplies it needs to carry shouldn't be a problem and the reentry capsule should be able to handle the 25,000 mph return. However would the mission be too dangerous in terms of radiation exposure?
Have provisions been made on the JWST since to allow for removal/change of the instruments/gyroscopes like Hubble? What about docking ports or grappling interfaces?
Who knows? I don't, I'm neither a physicist nor do I know anything about the material's properties (or whether they can be improved upon sufficiently). I wish someone more qualified would point out the "holes" in my suggestion!
What about my aerogel idea? Again, if you could put a really huge block of it in space (it would have to be able to be manufactured there) wouldn't that work as well or better?
The net, overall will be very large and weigh thousands of kilograms or more and will definitely absorb the smaller fragments with impunity These little fragments could otherwise be the hardest to "catch" in a reasonable fashion because they are so numerous and multiplying the quickest after every collision. Also, if you slowly spin the net, it will remain open and not wad up.
You are right about the really large "fragments" (boosters, complete satellites) however they are relatively few in number and could possibly be dealt with in a more individual fashion. I'm thinking the net will be used to get the millions of smaller items. Anyway wasn't there some Japanese anime about a space trash man who's job was to get those bigger objects?
The fact that it is "strong as steel" and "light as air" seems to me like it could be made into a (very) big net that, when launched into orbit could capture space junk. Hopefully the fact that it stretches 200% could mean that it would have enough elasticity to absorb some of the kinetic energy of the space junk.
As long as the space junk didn't make holes in it, it would slow the junk enough so that they would fall out of orbit quickly. (Maybe the impact of a lot of junk would require periodic re-boosting of the net, I don't know.)
Another idea would be to use AEROGELS. This super lightweight material has already been proven to slow down hyper velocity objects (admittedly just particles) in the spacecraft "Stardust". The main problem with aerogels would be launching it into orbit, although it is very light the necessary volume required would be huge. However, if it could be manufactured in space then just a small amount of raw material could make a gigantic volume of the stuff.
So will it be a computer running a "traditional" OS with the whole Windows, Icons, Mouse Pointer interface or will Apple make it a big iPhone like device that hides a lot of that stuff under a (relatively) minimalist user interface?
Part of me wants the WIMP paradigm because of the additional control I have over files and folders but part of me wants to see how far you can take an interface based from the ground up on a purely touch interface (like the iPhone). [I think the advantage of a iPhone interface is that it is even simpler than a WIMP interface, no need to explain about files or directories etc. Great for the rest of... err.. them, like my mom!]
Speaking of user interfaces, did anyone catch the new "Voice over" feature in the new iPod Shuffle? It seems this might be another (relatively) unexplored user interface design where a visual user interface is not available. Will this be incorporated into other Apple products (like multi-touch was transported from the iPhone to the MacBook touchpads?).
I say "relatively" because obviously voice/audio cue interfaces are not new (every voice mail system uses them) but this is the first time I've seen it in a portable device.
If aerogels can be made in space (without the need for the heavy supercritical fluid needed to make it on earth or if there is some way to recycle the fluid) you could cheaply launch very large volumes of a substance that would have the ability to absorb momentum from colliding objects. This would either result in the object being embedded in the aerogel (if it was small relative to the aerogel) or the object would punch through it but still end up being decelerated (if the object was large but still small enough not to destroy the aerogel).
This is of course the material that was used in NASA's stardust mission which picked up cometary material while passing by it at a very high relative velocity. (25,000+ mph?). The (tiny) cometary particles became embedded in the aerogel.
If you can scale this up substantially you should be able to capture or at least decelerate much larger objects. Of course this means your aerogel would have to be very large and thick but since it is the lightest material known to man the launch costs would be very low IF YOU COULD MAKE IT IN ORBIT. Having a very large piece of aerogel also increases its cross section which is very desirable because you'll eventually want to basically sweep up ALL the objects in earth orbit that can cause harm (like paint chips, etc.) and not just the ones that are large enough to be tracked.
I believe aerogels are used for micrometeoroid protection on the ISS.
An interesting question (assuming this worked) would be; if there were semi-random impacts on a large orbiting "sponge" as it were would this cause the sponge itself to de-orbit? (Of courses you could periodically reboost it). Or would the impacts from all directions cancel each other out? I say "semi-random" because even the debris from orbital collisions probably have some "bias" in their motion, for example most satellites were launched towards the east to gain angular momentum from the earth's spin.
I'm actually much more intrigued by the statement at the end of the article in Space.com about the nuclear powered rover they intend to land on the moon.
Interesting (if true) that they didn't just put on solar panels (will the rover be used during the lunar night?).
If they are willing to use nuclear power (probably just RTGs) for such a relatively modest application (except for an experiment or two the Apollo astronauts left on the moon I don't think any nuclear power was ever used there) will they be using nukes for more applications in their space program?
Nuclear power (first as RTGs, then as full fledged reactors) will REALLY give their spacecraft an order of magnitude more capability than solar powered ones. The Russian radar satellites used to locate American carrier groups used nukes (and one crashed in Canada!). If the Chinese are willing to take the risk (our collective risk?) for using nukes in space what kind of benefits will they obtain?
Certainly, for some military applications a small, compact nuclear power plant might be a better power source than large vulnerable solar cells. (though the reactor would likely need radiator fins).
Ok, ok, as I've said before in other comments maybe I overdid it.
But I'm still concerned that we're getting close to some serious feedback issues with the climate (permafrost melting, ocean carbon sinks saturating). I know that they can rebuild it in less than the 7 years it took to make the first one but even so it'll be years and maybe they'll try launching it on the Taurus again!
I really thought OCO was going to give us much more detailed CO2 data than the Japanese satellite. If I'm wrong then you're right I am overstating it.
If I'm right - the sky is falling!
Ok, ok, as I've said before in other premises maybe I overdid it.
But I'm still concerned that we're getting close to some serious feedback issues with the climate (permafrost melting, ocean carbon sinks saturating).
I really thought OCO was going to give us much more detailed CO2 data than the Japanese satellite. If I'm wrong then you're right I am overstating it.
If I'm right - the sky is falling!
Ok, ok, as I've said before in other premises maybe I overdid it.
But I'm still concerned that we're getting close to some serious feedback issues with the climate (permafrost melting, ocean carbon sinks saturating).
I really thought OCO was going to give us much more detailed CO2 data than the Japanese satellite. If I'm wrong then you're right I am overstating it.
If I'm right - the sky is falling! :(
Ok, ok, as I've said before in other premises maybe I overdid it.
But I'm still concerned that we're getting close to some serious feedback issues with the climate (permafrost melting, ocean carbon sinks saturating).
I really thought OCO was going to give us much more detailed CO2 data than the Japanese satellite. If I'm wrong then you're right I am overstating it.
If I'm right - the sky is falling! :)
You do know that Americans like you (you are an American right?) is the reason why Americans will be speaking Chinese in about 50 years. That is unless Obama can save your butt.
Humanity's been around for a long time. We've all had the basics (simple agriculture, fire, writing, legal systems) for millenia. Some peoples built some rather large civilizations using that (Romans, Egyptions, Mayans, Khmer, Chinese) but as a whole, life for most people (the 95% who worked in the fields) was the same for everyone in every age. Life was brutish and short.
Then, a couple guys in Northern Europe (no I'm not remotely descended from them), said: "Hey, instead of guessing about the natural world, why don't we observe it, and make theories to predict it? And then, IF OUR PREDICTIONS ARE CORRECT, we'll have learned something. Something that will work EVERY TIME or if it doesn't we'll REVISE OUR THEORY.
That's what separates us from the ancients. Democracy? The greeks tried it long time ago. Merchants? The Chinese and the Romans had some pretty good trading networks. Religion? Well the Jews had a good monotheistic religion way back. No, the fact that you and I are exchanging messages on a world wide network that is storing a good fraction of humanities knowledge is due to SCIENCE and the accumulated knowledge that came from that.
I will follow my doctor's advice (or the majority if my second opinion doesn't agree)
I will follow the instructions of the cabin attendants (while kissing my butt goodbye)
I will follow their instructions unless it looks like suicide (no kamikaze pilot I). Basically I'm fucked
I will follow what the climatologists say is the rational way to get out or AMELIORATE this problem. I would most certainly HELP THEM GET MORE DATA (which is why losing the OSO pisses me off). If I'm a snowflake, I guess I'll just melt.
What exactly are you suggesting I do? We (should?) play the cards we are dealt with in the best (most rational) way we can.
You're absolutely right when you say that Science isn't about voting on truth. Best example I can think of plate tectonics; the guy who promoted that was derided as a loony because "continents don't move".
But then a funny thing happened. More and more data came up to support him. First the fossil similarities on both sides of the atlantic. Then the mid atlantic ridge. Finally, if it wasn't already proven in almost all geologists minds, they found the active spreading.
That's the thing about science. Sure you might be the underdog but the "truth" will win out in the end. It has to, because nature is always right. The problem with this Spencer guy (sorry, never heard of him) is that with more and more data being collected (alas not from the OCO) there are more and more climatologists believing in man-made warming. No good scientist will say they are 100% certain (look at the ICC report, it is all in probabilities) on such a complex issue but it is apparent that the evidence is getting stronger not weaker. Again, maybe Spencer is a genius but he'll have to prove it. If he does, he'll be famous like the guy who came up with tectonic drift ("I" don't know his name but I'm sure just about every geologist does!).
Actually it's funny that you mentioned Spencer. I followed the Wikipedia link and briefly skimmed his bio. You mention that the last two paragraphs of what I wrote is "Not relevant". After reading Spencer's bio it's so relevant it's funny! I was going to say that everybody has an opinion and sometimes that opinion can't be changed by facts no matter how strong. That's called BELIEF. Without reading Spencer's bio an inch further, I'll bet you he's some sort of fundamentalist or born again Christian. Why? Because he's got all this evidence staring him in the face on global warming (and supposedly evolution) and he draws the opposite conclusion that 95% of his colleagues do. YOU CAN'T CHANGE SOMEONE'S MIND IF IT'S CLOSED. So I have to thank you, you've proved that my last two paragraphs are Very relevant!
Wow, such a cogent reasonable reply to my argument. I think I should formulate the appropriate response - NOT.
Look, even though I've researched these issues (much?) more than the average person, once again, I'm not a climatologist. At some point, everyone in this world has to trust other people, there is simply too much information for one person to understand it all (the last person in history who is thought to have known everything at the time was Sir Francis Bacon).
So, who do you trust? Well if I have a serious illness, I'll trust my doctor/surgeon. If I'm on a plane I'll trust my pilot. If I'm a soldier in a war I'll trust my general. If I'm a general (who wants to make sure the bombs will go off) I'll trust my scientists. Basically, the vast consensus of scientists working in climatology think we're headed for (man-made) trouble.
If a climatologist told me that my computer processor was inefficient I might disregard him, or if my neurologist told me that concrete was a poorer building material than steel I might ignore him. But these are people who've specialized and studied a long time in their respective fields. While science has certainly gone into blind alleys, it has, over time proven its accuracy in describing the real world. (Read about life in the middle ages).
I don't know anything about your anecdote regarding Greenland, the only one I know is that the Vikings named Greenland "Green" land to fool people to think it was valuable (when they really colonized Iceland). Still I hope you don't base your life around anecdotes; for example I hope you don't believe in not vaccinating your kids because you've heard it causes autism.