No, just as the government is erring too much on the side of paranoia, you're erring too much on the side of transparency. Governments do need some secrets.
Government needs secrets, yes. But they should only be necessary, logical and therefore defensible secrets. Secrets will come out eventually, and if that would result in serious embarrassment, worsening relations, etc, then maybe you did the wrong thing in the first place. The sneakier and more deceptive you are, the more embarrassing the release of those secrets will be, and the bigger the need for transparency will be.
Be honest, and you'll have nothing to fear. Note that some of the leaked secrets did indeed expose politicians lying to their people. They shouldn't be doing that in the first place. If the occasional leak helps to prevent that, then I'm all for it.
It's quite a bit better than marginally, but this announcement could not have had a more ironic timing. And the US dropping a few places on the world press freedom list wouldn't look too great either.
But let's be honest: the US is still pretty good when it comes to free press. But they're not topping the list.
That's the problem. In the US, only the law stands up for freedom, and the legal process for it is long and cumbersome. In Netherland, the people themselves stand up for freedom. The government doesn't get away with pulling shit. We don't shy away from breaking the law when justice demands it. In fact, several of our major national newspapers started during WW2 as illegal resistance newspapers. One of the most influential Dutch ISPs was started by hackers, and still fights for internet freedom.
Despite our small size, we already have dozens of Wikileaks mirrors, several of them hosted by public broadcasting corporations. How many does your country have? And how many are hosted by semi-government organisations?
Countries like the Netherlands do not recognize the inalienable right of the people to overthrow their own government, and to maintain the force necessary in order to do so, should their government become oppressive.
How about we make sure the government doesn't become oppressive in the first place? The US has done a lot more to crush revolution and rebellion than Netherland has.
And if these rights are so inalienable, why do they even need to be in the constitution at all? We used our free speech before there even were constitutions. We seceded from an oppressive government before anyone even considered "the people" to have any rights at all. What the fuck does the right to bear arms have to do with free speech? If they take your free speech, you get to shoot them? What if they take your weapons?
In the end, freedom only lives if it lives in the hearts of the people. And as far as I can tell, freedom of speech lives more in the hearts of the Dutch and in the hearts of Americans, who are only too happy to censor themselves and each other whenever the government wants something.
In fact, even after 230 years of the US example, I don't know of any other governments whose core founding and/or legal principles include the explicit recognition of the citizenry's inalienable right to freedom of speech,
That says more about your ignorance than about other countries. Lots of European countries have freedom of speech in their constitution. Not just that, they seem to be doing a better job of defending that freedom. (I'm particularly pleased with how many Dutch politicians have responded to Assange's prosecution. It's almost enough to give me confidence in my country again.)
* It could be worse * We need to give up our ideals to protect them * Fight fire with fire
Personally I think you're wrong. The US isn't losing influence because it's honest and free, it's losing influence because it's lying and corrupt. Its hypocrisy is what's hurting it. Partially because nobody believes them anymore, partially because the US loses the high ground, and partially because without its ideals, what's worth defending about the US?
The moment you give up your ideals, you've already lost. Influence for influence's sake is not something that inspires people. A little bit of totalitarianism isn't okay just because others happen to be worse. You're advocating a race to the bottom. I'll have no part in that.
The first woman was no groupie, but she did throw him a party afterward and tweeted that she was hanging out with the coolest people in the world. Not something you're likely to say about someone who just raped you, I think.
Well, I for one think that there is a qualitative difference between arresting anyone saying "democracy is awesome" a la China (and boycotting the Nobel Peace Prize / threatening nations who send delegating), and arresting / wanting to arrest people for actually taking classified documents from your government offices and reproducing them online. One is about suppressing opinions the government doesn't like, and the other is about government transparency. I can appreciate the case for transparency, mind you! I just don't think it's such a big "OMG we're such hypocrites irony!!!!" sort of deal like it's trendy to think in these parts.
Even so, with the US government's attempts to censor and prosecute Wikileaks, they're clearly not the world's greatest champions of free press at this moment, don't you think?
I think The Register is just naturally antagonistic against whatever strikes their fancy. Neither skeptic, not deniers, just antagonistic for its own sake. They write funny headlines, though.
Why the hell did parent get modded down? It's a rational conservative argument for why we should reduce CO2 emissions. You may not be conservative, you may not want to reduce CO2 emissions, but it's a sensible post, and deserves to be modded up.
Or at least the first half is. The second half is a rant. But the first half is worth it.
The real problem is that charlatans abound on *both* sides of the aisle. The original poster in this subthread is an excellent example - he's not interested in any result other than DOOM DOOMITY DOOM.
What original poster are you talking about? I don't see any direct ancestor of your post who's talking about doom.
Of course there are individual measurements, reports and experiments that are good to be skeptical about. That kind of skepticism led to the research in TFA, and that's a good thing. The problem is that people start denying the very basis of established science. The greenhouse effect, common descent (in the case of creationists), mutation and natural selection (intelligent design), or pretty much all of physics (Flat Earthers).
Questioning impacts and relationships of various effects, and especially whether they have been taken into account at all, is perfectly fine and productive. But question the established scientific theory or established observations, and you need to come up with some good evidence, or you're placing yourself in a totally different group of people. Not one where I'd expect skeptics to feel comfortable at all.
It sounds sensible to say "teach the controversy", but it looks rather silly when the controversy is entirely political, and not scientific.
I find it strange that people think the scientific method is based on a philosophy or ideology.
Ever heard of Karl Popper? What we currently call the Scientific Method is not even all that old, and mostly formalised by Popper, a philosopher. It's worth knowing his name, because his thinking has had a huge impact on our thinking.
Without falsifiable theories and testable observations, most of us would rely on intuition and superstition.
True, but that doesn't mean that previous scientific conclusions will be completely refuted. Newton's Law of Gravity turned out to be wrong and was replaced, but in practice their predictions are 99% the same. It's only that 1% that required a better theory. The Theory of Evolution has seen a lot of refinements over the past 150 years, but the basics stand. We don't fully understand all the effects and feedback mechanisms behind global warming, but the basic theory that rising CO2 means retaining more heat, is sound.
Thank you! This is something that needs to be modded up Informative and Insightful, and posted all over the interwebs.
There are lots of details we don't fully understand yet, but the basic scientific foundation is as good as those of Quantum Mechanics or the Theory of Evolution (though that last one might not convince many of the deniers).
Man, do I agree with the second half of your post! The CO2 quota are a really stupid idea. What we should be doing is tax the production of CO2 or use of carbon fuels, in proportion to how much it costs to get that CO2 out of the atmosphere again. Not 100%, obviously, but 5% would be a nice start. And levy that same tax on imports from countries that don't tax their production in the same way.
This creates an economic incentive to pollute less, and incentive for other nations to join the system, and it generates money that can be used to find good long-term solutions.
And I say that lowering the levels of CO2 will cause fairies to explode into flower scented farts. The burden of proof is on you to prove that it won't happen. Or do you want all the fairies to die?
Got any evidence to back that up? Proven it on a small scale? Some math that makes any kind of sense?
Your "proof" that CO2 has anything to do with temperature, is that you took a vote (consensus) on it.
Only if you look only at the political side of the global warming debate. In science, the warming effect of CO2 is well-established and proven on smaller scales. Please explain why CO2 would behave completely differently on a large scale.
The biggest problem with the effect CO2 has on global warming is that there are also a lot of other warming and cooling effects, and the relationship between those is not always fully understood. And that's what TFA is talking about.
Not only that, but there is absolutely no evidence for the involvement of CO2 in 'it.'
Yes there is. The prediction that rising CO2 levels will cause global warming is old. (I once saw a (bad B-?) movie from the 1940s where a (mad?) scientist explained how our growing industry would spell the doom for modern civilisation. It is honestly not as recent or controversial as deniers make it out to be.)
Moreover, it's been quite thoroughly proven on a small scale. The only problem with the global scale is that there are a lot more factors influencing various warming and cooling effects, not to mention the CO2 levels themselves. That's what makes it complex. But the effect of CO2 is well-established. Denying that is like saying that evolution has never been proven (which is something a lot of people admittedly claim, but they're wrong).
Slashdot Mirror
No, just as the government is erring too much on the side of paranoia, you're erring too much on the side of transparency. Governments do need some secrets.
Government needs secrets, yes. But they should only be necessary, logical and therefore defensible secrets. Secrets will come out eventually, and if that would result in serious embarrassment, worsening relations, etc, then maybe you did the wrong thing in the first place. The sneakier and more deceptive you are, the more embarrassing the release of those secrets will be, and the bigger the need for transparency will be.
Be honest, and you'll have nothing to fear. Note that some of the leaked secrets did indeed expose politicians lying to their people. They shouldn't be doing that in the first place. If the occasional leak helps to prevent that, then I'm all for it.
It's quite a bit better than marginally, but this announcement could not have had a more ironic timing. And the US dropping a few places on the world press freedom list wouldn't look too great either.
But let's be honest: the US is still pretty good when it comes to free press. But they're not topping the list.
Btw, where again was wikileaks registered? Maybe it's time to move?
They are already constantly on the move. At least the domain names are, because US-based DNS providers keep kicking them out.
That's the problem. In the US, only the law stands up for freedom, and the legal process for it is long and cumbersome. In Netherland, the people themselves stand up for freedom. The government doesn't get away with pulling shit. We don't shy away from breaking the law when justice demands it. In fact, several of our major national newspapers started during WW2 as illegal resistance newspapers. One of the most influential Dutch ISPs was started by hackers, and still fights for internet freedom.
Despite our small size, we already have dozens of Wikileaks mirrors, several of them hosted by public broadcasting corporations. How many does your country have? And how many are hosted by semi-government organisations?
Countries like the Netherlands do not recognize the inalienable right of the people to overthrow their own government, and to maintain the force necessary in order to do so, should their government become oppressive.
How about we make sure the government doesn't become oppressive in the first place? The US has done a lot more to crush revolution and rebellion than Netherland has.
And if these rights are so inalienable, why do they even need to be in the constitution at all? We used our free speech before there even were constitutions. We seceded from an oppressive government before anyone even considered "the people" to have any rights at all. What the fuck does the right to bear arms have to do with free speech? If they take your free speech, you get to shoot them? What if they take your weapons?
In the end, freedom only lives if it lives in the hearts of the people. And as far as I can tell, freedom of speech lives more in the hearts of the Dutch and in the hearts of Americans, who are only too happy to censor themselves and each other whenever the government wants something.
In fact, even after 230 years of the US example, I don't know of any other governments whose core founding and/or legal principles include the explicit recognition of the citizenry's inalienable right to freedom of speech,
That says more about your ignorance than about other countries. Lots of European countries have freedom of speech in their constitution. Not just that, they seem to be doing a better job of defending that freedom. (I'm particularly pleased with how many Dutch politicians have responded to Assange's prosecution. It's almost enough to give me confidence in my country again.)
So how come that freedom of speech in the US gets aliened all the time?
And remember, this was before the US response to the Wikileaks release. Guess they'll be dropping a few places...
But so will Sweden.
How should I summarize your post?
* It could be worse
* We need to give up our ideals to protect them
* Fight fire with fire
Personally I think you're wrong. The US isn't losing influence because it's honest and free, it's losing influence because it's lying and corrupt. Its hypocrisy is what's hurting it. Partially because nobody believes them anymore, partially because the US loses the high ground, and partially because without its ideals, what's worth defending about the US?
The moment you give up your ideals, you've already lost. Influence for influence's sake is not something that inspires people. A little bit of totalitarianism isn't okay just because others happen to be worse. You're advocating a race to the bottom. I'll have no part in that.
The first woman was no groupie, but she did throw him a party afterward and tweeted that she was hanging out with the coolest people in the world. Not something you're likely to say about someone who just raped you, I think.
Well, I for one think that there is a qualitative difference between arresting anyone saying "democracy is awesome" a la China (and boycotting the Nobel Peace Prize / threatening nations who send delegating), and arresting / wanting to arrest people for actually taking classified documents from your government offices and reproducing them online. One is about suppressing opinions the government doesn't like, and the other is about government transparency. I can appreciate the case for transparency, mind you! I just don't think it's such a big "OMG we're such hypocrites irony!!!!" sort of deal like it's trendy to think in these parts.
Even so, with the US government's attempts to censor and prosecute Wikileaks, they're clearly not the world's greatest champions of free press at this moment, don't you think?
I read them mostly because they're funny. I rarely believe a word of what they actually write.
Still, they do make a lot of noise about announcements that are still more questions than answers.
Guess what you moron. The actual actual temperatures recorded during the last few years show a drop in temperature.
So the recent news that 2010 was the warmest year ever didn't actually exist?
these are theories they are mere hypotheses that are constantly being disproven or modified.
"Refined" is the word you're looking for, and that's not as bad as you make it out to be. It happens to the very best scientific theories.
I think The Register is just naturally antagonistic against whatever strikes their fancy. Neither skeptic, not deniers, just antagonistic for its own sake. They write funny headlines, though.
Why the hell did parent get modded down? It's a rational conservative argument for why we should reduce CO2 emissions. You may not be conservative, you may not want to reduce CO2 emissions, but it's a sensible post, and deserves to be modded up.
Or at least the first half is. The second half is a rant. But the first half is worth it.
The real problem is that charlatans abound on *both* sides of the aisle. The original poster in this subthread is an excellent example - he's not interested in any result other than DOOM DOOMITY DOOM.
What original poster are you talking about? I don't see any direct ancestor of your post who's talking about doom.
Of course there are individual measurements, reports and experiments that are good to be skeptical about. That kind of skepticism led to the research in TFA, and that's a good thing. The problem is that people start denying the very basis of established science. The greenhouse effect, common descent (in the case of creationists), mutation and natural selection (intelligent design), or pretty much all of physics (Flat Earthers).
Questioning impacts and relationships of various effects, and especially whether they have been taken into account at all, is perfectly fine and productive. But question the established scientific theory or established observations, and you need to come up with some good evidence, or you're placing yourself in a totally different group of people. Not one where I'd expect skeptics to feel comfortable at all.
It sounds sensible to say "teach the controversy", but it looks rather silly when the controversy is entirely political, and not scientific.
I find it strange that people think the scientific method is based on a philosophy or ideology.
Ever heard of Karl Popper? What we currently call the Scientific Method is not even all that old, and mostly formalised by Popper, a philosopher. It's worth knowing his name, because his thinking has had a huge impact on our thinking.
Without falsifiable theories and testable observations, most of us would rely on intuition and superstition.
True, but that doesn't mean that previous scientific conclusions will be completely refuted. Newton's Law of Gravity turned out to be wrong and was replaced, but in practice their predictions are 99% the same. It's only that 1% that required a better theory. The Theory of Evolution has seen a lot of refinements over the past 150 years, but the basics stand. We don't fully understand all the effects and feedback mechanisms behind global warming, but the basic theory that rising CO2 means retaining more heat, is sound.
Thank you! This is something that needs to be modded up Informative and Insightful, and posted all over the interwebs.
There are lots of details we don't fully understand yet, but the basic scientific foundation is as good as those of Quantum Mechanics or the Theory of Evolution (though that last one might not convince many of the deniers).
Man, do I agree with the second half of your post! The CO2 quota are a really stupid idea. What we should be doing is tax the production of CO2 or use of carbon fuels, in proportion to how much it costs to get that CO2 out of the atmosphere again. Not 100%, obviously, but 5% would be a nice start. And levy that same tax on imports from countries that don't tax their production in the same way.
This creates an economic incentive to pollute less, and incentive for other nations to join the system, and it generates money that can be used to find good long-term solutions.
And I say that lowering the levels of CO2 will cause fairies to explode into flower scented farts. The burden of proof is on you to prove that it won't happen. Or do you want all the fairies to die?
Got any evidence to back that up? Proven it on a small scale? Some math that makes any kind of sense?
Your "proof" that CO2 has anything to do with temperature, is that you took a vote (consensus) on it.
Only if you look only at the political side of the global warming debate. In science, the warming effect of CO2 is well-established and proven on smaller scales. Please explain why CO2 would behave completely differently on a large scale.
The biggest problem with the effect CO2 has on global warming is that there are also a lot of other warming and cooling effects, and the relationship between those is not always fully understood. And that's what TFA is talking about.
Not only that, but there is absolutely no evidence for the involvement of CO2 in 'it.'
Yes there is. The prediction that rising CO2 levels will cause global warming is old. (I once saw a (bad B-?) movie from the 1940s where a (mad?) scientist explained how our growing industry would spell the doom for modern civilisation. It is honestly not as recent or controversial as deniers make it out to be.)
Moreover, it's been quite thoroughly proven on a small scale. The only problem with the global scale is that there are a lot more factors influencing various warming and cooling effects, not to mention the CO2 levels themselves. That's what makes it complex. But the effect of CO2 is well-established. Denying that is like saying that evolution has never been proven (which is something a lot of people admittedly claim, but they're wrong).