Just wondering if you could actually link that verse to your proposition in any logical/meaningful way?
Seems to me that it says it's ok to be a slave which if I were a slave, I would take to heart as a validation of me, and a reflection of on the importance of my conduct in the household, not a validation of slavery itself. Also I note that there is a whole letter of the New Testament written to a slave owner, whose slave has run away - urging him to accept the slave back as a brother, and not a bondservant - and you failed to mention that fact, why is that?
It would stop if people got past the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" teachings of the Old Testament (I am not sure what the quran says about this but I bet there is a similar quote).
I suggest that it would stop if people stopped classifying people as the "other", and started seeing them as people. This would include not doing what you have done - which is simplify peoples motives and beliefs and indeed, arrive at conclusions which are a gross distortion of the actual situation.
Nobody needs to get past the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" teachings of the Old Testament. But everybody has an inherent desire for vengeance for wrongs done, and the more personal that wrong, the more we are all inclined to exact vengeance. We are also all inclined toward prejudice toward others, of forming in our minds caricatures of entire people groups, and treating them a as single point on a graph - this is behaviour we default to. Apart form self awareness, there is no evidence that anything makes a difference to this behaviour, not being richer, not education, nothing.
I saw an interesting documentary last night (http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2012/s3545901.htm) about the effects of ISAF/Afghan government efforts to destroy poppy growing in Afghanistan, and thus to destroy a source of income for the Taliban and also reduce the supply of heroin. Of course, in reality, poppy farmers have borrowed from drug traffickers, anticipating a return from the crop - only to have the crop destroyed. Consequently they are forced to give their daughters away into sexual slavery in to "repay" the debt owed - girls, it seems, translate into monetary worth. Anybody who thinks we have done or are doing "good" in Afghanistan is wrong. Anybody who thinks the right people are being targeted by drone strikes is wrong.
Let me say first that I find Scientology repulsive and a particularly greasy form of pyramid scheme. However, compared to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic trinity, they are responsible for much less evil and far fewer deaths. Between those three religions you have tens of millions slaughtered in pointless wars over minor differences in doctrine.
Tens of millions? Really? What wars were those?
You have sexism that runs deep through the dogma of all three. You have churches who have officially sanctioned everything from genocide to sexually abusing children to slavery. This stuff isn't even in the distant past. I can find examples in the last century where each of these religions has committed terrible atrocities.
Atrocities are always committed in the "name of" something. Minor atrocities have been committed in my name - but I utterly repudiate the notion that I have any responsibility for those atrocities. Atrocities have been committed in *your* name as well, and in the name of your religion. So as a wise man once said - take the plank out your own eye before trying to remove a speck from the eye of your brother.
Scientology is easy to hate because it is so ridiculous, so absurd, and generally unpopular. It's an easier target than Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. But if you really take a step back and look at the doctrine of those three faiths, they are equally as ridiculous.
And to others, your faith looks ridiculous as well. So what?
In general stuff that if it really supprised you, then you are an idiot.
Strawman. Whether or not a person is suprised is not even in question. Like all right thinking people I was repulsed, angered, but not surprised that boys were being raped and the US was complicit in these horrific acts.
yes we all know our respective countries feed us a degree of propaganda. Because there are some voter disapproved things that need to be done to keep alies, or some representatives who can't keep their mouth shut or use the information to mess up a plan.
Nothing leaked from Wikileaks was that big deal if you think a little more big picture.
I see. And what of the murdered and raped people in question? Was it a big deal for them? Should they have focused on the bigger picture? If I bombed your daughters wedding and slaughtered your family and then stole your son and raped him, would you just accept that I did that for the greater good? Or do you imagine that the US is somehow exceptional and it's citizens treated better than everyone else? If so, you are grievously wrong.
It ain't a perfect world, and your side isn't always the good side.
I choose a side based on the actions of that side. So, after the revelations obtained by Wikileaks, will many others. And there is nothing that you, or your pederast buddies can do about that.
How, pray tell did Wikileaks mismanage anything? Seems to me that they got an awful lot of important information to press where it belonged. Like what our elected representatives actually think of the war in Afghanistan, or the fact that there was a certain senator in the Australian parliament passing information to the US embassy. Information we, the people who elect the senate didn't know but should have, by rights. Or that a US defence contractor was buying Afghan boys to be raped by war lords. Kind of critical information if that defence contractor is also buying US congressman.
Of course such arguments (that we ought to go into space to get more resources) ignore the fact that the energy budget required to move any significant mass from space to the earth is too cost prohibitive - and if we had an energy source dense enough to make it work we wouldn't need those resources anyway.
I think what they told him was that the earth was 40000km in diameter whilst he insisted that it was considerably smaller - and he was comprehensively proven wrong, albeit he never admitted it. is that what you are referring to?
Interesting that a Google search doesn't really show anyone in the AGW crowds addressing this.
The reason I suspect is that (a) ClimateAudit and WUWT aren't the contenders they think they are. Climate scientists go to the chicken coop to collect the eggs - not to engage in stimulating conversation. and
(b) It's obvious from the discussion following that something has gone wrong in the climateaudit analysis although it takes a while to sink in. Then some awkward questions start arising. Does the O18 data from the Law Dome actually match the assertion? What is the relationship between the O18 data and other datasets?
Conclusions:
1. The worthwhile henfolk at the WUWT chicken coop mistakenly assume that the presence of a medieval temperature variation will present a problem for climate science
2. The coop couldn't actually explain what the graph meant and didn't seem to understand it.
It's the projection component of climate models which is specifically barred. In my illustration, this translates to using a GPS to predict when the driver will arrive in Ansonville. Do make this prediction, the GPS baselines various variables (speed, distance to travel, road data) and then predicts when the vehicle will arrive.
A climate model does the same thing but with many more dimensions. The legislation is based on the notion that climate doesn't change and hence historical trends will be sufficient for predicting future climate. This, as another poster accurately quipped, is like a GPS based on travel times from a 100 years ago.
Anything else I can do to assist you?
Your snide comments ignore the fact you cannot provide a link to any truly peer reviewed paper proving the modern disasters predicted ahead - all of them used data that was not generally published.
There is no model form the 1980s that predicted that by now, at 56 degrees latitude north landmasses will be buried under a mile of ice, and that equatorial Africa would have a climate similar to Central Europe.
There is no model from the 1990s that the Earth would be fried by intense UV because of the complete unstoppable destruction of the ozone layer, with arid deserts reaching from the Sahara to as far north as Denmark - where it wasn't all submerged under water from the melting icecaps.
There is no climate model from ten years ago (2002) that told us that by now, we'd be experiencing unprecedented storms, hurricane-force winds all year round, and bitterly cold winters and blistering hot summers that kill off all the arable crops.
What is interesting is the level of specificity used in this fraud - attempting to add plausibility by making reference to personal expertise and experience. In fact it is my suspicion that the poster of these remarks already knew that those assertion were not accurate - he/she was lying.
No model published has been able to predict anything about what the climate is doing, what sea levels are doing, etc. etc. - yet they are not afraid to make the most dire of forecasts, like four feet of sea level rise.
On the contrary, climate models have been alarmingly accurate, especially since the development of AOGCMs. It's certainly true that they are simulations, and climatologists have been quite open about their shortcomings.Newer, less parameterised models are more accurate than those used even in the 1980s
The alternative, of course, is to accept the kind of blind guesswork prevalent in the chicken coop of climate denialism - the above demonstrates just how far off base those chicken heads are, even to the extent of openly lying about the past. You'll have to forgive us if in future we are sceptical about pronouncements coming from this source.
Oh Bullwinkle! You silly moose. Which part of A climate model does the same thing but with many more dimensions. did you not understand? Awwwwww shucks! Looks like you done it again [canned laughter]
The climate models in use thirty years ago when I was at school told us that by now, up here around 56 degrees north we'd be buried under a mile of ice, and that equatorial Africa would have a climate similar to Central Europe.
Please provide a link to the model in question, as well as a peer reviewed paper from the 1980s predicting a mile of ice covering land masses at 56 degrees north.
The climate models in use twenty years ago when I was at university told us that by now, the Earth would be fried by intense UV because of the complete unstoppable destruction of the ozone layer, with arid deserts reaching from the Sahara to as far north as Denmark - where it wasn't all submerged under water from the melting icecaps.
Please provide a link to the models in question, as well as a peer reviewed paper from the early 1990s making those predictions.
The climate models in use ten years ago when I worked on data visualisation for - among other things - weather modelling told us that by now, we'd be experiencing unprecedented storms, hurricane-force winds all year round, and bitterly cold winters and blistering hot summers that kill off all the arable crops.
Please provide a link to the models and peer reviewed papers from 2002 which make those predictions.
You'll have to forgive me if I don't entirely believe the climate predictions we hear today.
You'll have to forgive me if I think that you are intellectually dishonest and fraudulent - given:
1. In the 1980s to prevalent view on global warming was the same as it is now, and models from the 1980s accurately predict the warming we've seen since.
2. *I* was in university (studying science) in the early 1990s and the prevalent view of global warming at the time was exactly as it is now. In the early 90s the hole in the ozone layer had been known for 20 years, and satellites accurately mapped it's extent and growth - and the effects of UV were well known and not exaggerated.
3. In 2002 the prevailing view on climate was exactly as it is now, and no predictions were made in 2002 abotu what would be happening in 2012, apart from what we have subsequently observed
They're not just "openly" conducting the research, they're doing it with money from the government. So actually the situation is even better than you think.
Yes - as I said, it is fortunate that in some countries research which contradicts the prevailing view of the government and it's financial 'contributors' (such as the Heartland Institute) is allowed to continue, at least outside of North Carolina. In Australia such intellectual honesty is not permitted - governments threaten errant scientists with a loss of funding, while denialists openly threaten their lives and the lives of their families.
The government not only approves of what they do - it actually pays them to do it!
"Approves" is not the word you are looking for - tolerates, for the time being, might be more realistic description
(Don't worry! This source of funding does not in any way influence the results. Honest. There's no pressure to produce results that help to get more grant money in the future.)
I'm not actually that worried about the big money affecting the science - various attempts have been made (e.g. Lindzen ) but failed. The big money owns the policy makers and will continue to do so despite the blindingly obvious truth that the science is giving us.
Or your understanding is botched. The purpose of the law is essentially to prevent predictions form climate models being used in planning. See this similar mockup: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/blogs/republican/bill-bars-climate-models-in-projecting-sea-levels . It's the projection component of climate models which is specifically barred. In my illustration, this translates to using a GPS to predict when the driver will arrive in Ansonville. Do make this prediction, the GPS baselines various variables (speed, distance to travel, road data) and then predicts when the vehicle will arrive.
A climate model does the same thing but with many more dimensions. The legislation is based on the notion that climate doesn't change and hence historical trends will be sufficient for predicting future climate. This, as another poster accurately quipped, is like a GPS based on travel times from a 100 years ago.
In my country the previous government tried to silence scientists who suggested that there might be some problems on the horizon (specifically modelling around pacific islands and the likely population effects of AGW). The current government is somewhat more accepting - at least in public, whilst at the same time doling out public monies to the coal industry in private.
So in a sense the fact that scientists in the U.S are still able to openly conduct this sort of research is good news, even if the discoveries they make are bad.
So, Denialists don't cherry pick the data? If I go trawl through climate discussions, I won't find cherry picking by denialists?
Yeah, the "ludicrous" standards are the kind of unfair, hardline standards we hold children to in science fairs. If you cannot hold yourself to them, you are a storyteller, not a scientist -- therefore anyone in the climatology field who refuses to even consider such rigours as beneath them is not only full of bullshit, but they aren't even a fucking scientist -- they're a fraud.
Climatologists are behaving fraudulently?
And it's safe to assume then, that the twin hypotheses proposed by by denialists:
1. There is no warming
2. CO2 is not a greenhouse gas
Are both held up to the kind of rigorous standards you mentioned?
They start with the statement of "It is a scientific fact that global warming is happening," which is true. That the Earth is getting warmer outside of known cycles is a claim of fact, something you can measure, and measurements show it is indeed correct. No problems there.
However the problem then starts that they make a bunch of other claims, such as that if the warming continues Earth will be inhospitable, and so on, and want to claim that is all scientific fact too. No, not so much.
So - the difference between the part you accept and the part that you don't is.... what, exactly? You don't like bad news about the future? You don't like it?
It is the kind of thing that is actually up for a lot of debate since you have to evaluate all the different theories of what might happen, how well supported they are, and then pass a judgement call as to if it would be better or worse.
Well, there is really only 2 theories. The first one is that the climate will continue to get more energetic as we increase it's energy potential. This theory is based on observation and modelling of the physical world. The second is that the climate will not get more energetic for reasons we can't explain. This theory is based on the our predilection to burn stuff and cut things down.
Only one of these theories actually passes the lowest bar of intellectual honesty.
Thing is, they present it as just something you have to accept part and parcel. A situation of "If you deny any of this, you are denying the facts." No, not really. Anyone who says the Earth isn't warming is denying facts, unless they can show how the measurements that we use to reach that conclusion are flawed (given the measurements are world wide and spanning a century, it is possible, though unlikely, the conclusion is incorrect). However from that it does not automatically follow that things will be horrible.
The same science that tells us the earth is warming tells us what to expect from the future. Rejecting part of the science and accepting another part is like going to you oncologist and telling him that you will only accept a negative result. No. The same test the rules out cancer is the one that confirms it. The same test that tell you it's bad, but with treatment you will probably be okay, can also tell you that you will die. Rejecting one outcome because you would prefer that it not be true is not rational or defensible.
Since they corrected the error without any delay to the mission, your jibe seems to be a bit off target. Particularly given that the "error" is one that might conceivably have occurred and affected a single experiment.
Compare that to the type of error that could arise using the human mission - human falls over (as they are wont to do), breaks femur. Compound fracture. How do we recover form this error, given the problem of the human lying in agony on the surface of Mars, bleeding internally and slowly dying. Or human falls over and breaks their faceplate - death, of course, comes mercifully swift, but just wondering, does this endanger one experiment, or many? Or two humans, in frustration and out of boredom due to the interminably long flight, then interminably long hours spent cooped up on the surface habitat get into a fight - as humans are wont to do. Can we reset them to correct the error?
It seems odd that you would criticise the robot for contaminating the environment, and then later say that you don't care about contamination, even approve of it. But then to the external observer many of the notions in support of reusing the technology of yesteryear (e.g. Horse drawn buggies, mine ponies, gas light, manned space travel) seem anachronistic and self contradictory.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for speaking your doctrine as if it were established fact.
You can't pick and choose. Baby Jeebus says the old Testament rules are valid.
Did he?
Care to tell us where he said that?
Seems to me that it says it's ok to be a slave which if I were a slave, I would take to heart as a validation of me, and a reflection of on the importance of my conduct in the household, not a validation of slavery itself. Also I note that there is a whole letter of the New Testament written to a slave owner, whose slave has run away - urging him to accept the slave back as a brother, and not a bondservant - and you failed to mention that fact, why is that?
It would stop if people got past the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" teachings of the Old Testament (I am not sure what the quran says about this but I bet there is a similar quote).
I suggest that it would stop if people stopped classifying people as the "other", and started seeing them as people. This would include not doing what you have done - which is simplify peoples motives and beliefs and indeed, arrive at conclusions which are a gross distortion of the actual situation.
Nobody needs to get past the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" teachings of the Old Testament. But everybody has an inherent desire for vengeance for wrongs done, and the more personal that wrong, the more we are all inclined to exact vengeance. We are also all inclined toward prejudice toward others, of forming in our minds caricatures of entire people groups, and treating them a as single point on a graph - this is behaviour we default to. Apart form self awareness, there is no evidence that anything makes a difference to this behaviour, not being richer, not education, nothing.
I saw an interesting documentary last night (http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2012/s3545901.htm) about the effects of ISAF/Afghan government efforts to destroy poppy growing in Afghanistan, and thus to destroy a source of income for the Taliban and also reduce the supply of heroin. Of course, in reality, poppy farmers have borrowed from drug traffickers, anticipating a return from the crop - only to have the crop destroyed. Consequently they are forced to give their daughters away into sexual slavery in to "repay" the debt owed - girls, it seems, translate into monetary worth. Anybody who thinks we have done or are doing "good" in Afghanistan is wrong. Anybody who thinks the right people are being targeted by drone strikes is wrong.
Let me say first that I find Scientology repulsive and a particularly greasy form of pyramid scheme. However, compared to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic trinity, they are responsible for much less evil and far fewer deaths. Between those three religions you have tens of millions slaughtered in pointless wars over minor differences in doctrine.
Tens of millions? Really? What wars were those?
You have sexism that runs deep through the dogma of all three. You have churches who have officially sanctioned everything from genocide to sexually abusing children to slavery. This stuff isn't even in the distant past. I can find examples in the last century where each of these religions has committed terrible atrocities.
Atrocities are always committed in the "name of" something. Minor atrocities have been committed in my name - but I utterly repudiate the notion that I have any responsibility for those atrocities. Atrocities have been committed in *your* name as well, and in the name of your religion. So as a wise man once said - take the plank out your own eye before trying to remove a speck from the eye of your brother.
Scientology is easy to hate because it is so ridiculous, so absurd, and generally unpopular. It's an easier target than Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. But if you really take a step back and look at the doctrine of those three faiths, they are equally as ridiculous.
And to others, your faith looks ridiculous as well. So what?
In general stuff that if it really supprised you, then you are an idiot.
Strawman. Whether or not a person is suprised is not even in question. Like all right thinking people I was repulsed, angered, but not surprised that boys were being raped and the US was complicit in these horrific acts.
yes we all know our respective countries feed us a degree of propaganda. Because there are some voter disapproved things that need to be done to keep alies, or some representatives who can't keep their mouth shut or use the information to mess up a plan. Nothing leaked from Wikileaks was that big deal if you think a little more big picture.
I see. And what of the murdered and raped people in question? Was it a big deal for them? Should they have focused on the bigger picture? If I bombed your daughters wedding and slaughtered your family and then stole your son and raped him, would you just accept that I did that for the greater good? Or do you imagine that the US is somehow exceptional and it's citizens treated better than everyone else? If so, you are grievously wrong.
It ain't a perfect world, and your side isn't always the good side.
I choose a side based on the actions of that side. So, after the revelations obtained by Wikileaks, will many others. And there is nothing that you, or your pederast buddies can do about that.
How, pray tell did Wikileaks mismanage anything? Seems to me that they got an awful lot of important information to press where it belonged. Like what our elected representatives actually think of the war in Afghanistan, or the fact that there was a certain senator in the Australian parliament passing information to the US embassy. Information we, the people who elect the senate didn't know but should have, by rights. Or that a US defence contractor was buying Afghan boys to be raped by war lords. Kind of critical information if that defence contractor is also buying US congressman.
Of course such arguments (that we ought to go into space to get more resources) ignore the fact that the energy budget required to move any significant mass from space to the earth is too cost prohibitive - and if we had an energy source dense enough to make it work we wouldn't need those resources anyway.
Except he didn't discover Cuba.
I think what they told him was that the earth was 40000km in diameter whilst he insisted that it was considerably smaller - and he was comprehensively proven wrong, albeit he never admitted it. is that what you are referring to?
The last time we actually went where non-one has gone before was during an Ice Age. How, exactly, is it an imperative?
Climate Change Twaddle:
Here's your Climate Change
Interesting that a Google search doesn't really show anyone in the AGW crowds addressing this.
The reason I suspect is that (a) ClimateAudit and WUWT aren't the contenders they think they are. Climate scientists go to the chicken coop to collect the eggs - not to engage in stimulating conversation. and
(b) It's obvious from the discussion following that something has gone wrong in the climateaudit analysis although it takes a while to sink in. Then some awkward questions start arising. Does the O18 data from the Law Dome actually match the assertion? What is the relationship between the O18 data and other datasets?
Conclusions:
1. The worthwhile henfolk at the WUWT chicken coop mistakenly assume that the presence of a medieval temperature variation will present a problem for climate science
2. The coop couldn't actually explain what the graph meant and didn't seem to understand it.
It's the projection component of climate models which is specifically barred. In my illustration, this translates to using a GPS to predict when the driver will arrive in Ansonville. Do make this prediction, the GPS baselines various variables (speed, distance to travel, road data) and then predicts when the vehicle will arrive. A climate model does the same thing but with many more dimensions. The legislation is based on the notion that climate doesn't change and hence historical trends will be sufficient for predicting future climate. This, as another poster accurately quipped, is like a GPS based on travel times from a 100 years ago. Anything else I can do to assist you?
Your snide comments ignore the fact you cannot provide a link to any truly peer reviewed paper proving the modern disasters predicted ahead - all of them used data that was not generally published.
I take it from this radical change in rhetoric that in fact, there is NO models that make the predictions specified by the GP: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2917007&cid=40333763 - specifically:
There is no model form the 1980s that predicted that by now, at 56 degrees latitude north landmasses will be buried under a mile of ice, and that equatorial Africa would have a climate similar to Central Europe.
There is no model from the 1990s that the Earth would be fried by intense UV because of the complete unstoppable destruction of the ozone layer, with arid deserts reaching from the Sahara to as far north as Denmark - where it wasn't all submerged under water from the melting icecaps.
There is no climate model from ten years ago (2002) that told us that by now, we'd be experiencing unprecedented storms, hurricane-force winds all year round, and bitterly cold winters and blistering hot summers that kill off all the arable crops.
What is interesting is the level of specificity used in this fraud - attempting to add plausibility by making reference to personal expertise and experience. In fact it is my suspicion that the poster of these remarks already knew that those assertion were not accurate - he/she was lying.
No model published has been able to predict anything about what the climate is doing, what sea levels are doing, etc. etc. - yet they are not afraid to make the most dire of forecasts, like four feet of sea level rise.
On the contrary, climate models have been alarmingly accurate, especially since the development of AOGCMs. It's certainly true that they are simulations, and climatologists have been quite open about their shortcomings.Newer, less parameterised models are more accurate than those used even in the 1980s
The alternative, of course, is to accept the kind of blind guesswork prevalent in the chicken coop of climate denialism - the above demonstrates just how far off base those chicken heads are, even to the extent of openly lying about the past. You'll have to forgive us if in future we are sceptical about pronouncements coming from this source.
If the theatre is on fire, the correct response is to yell "fire" or otherwise raise the alarm. So perhaps the analogy is apt.
Oh Bullwinkle! You silly moose. Which part of A climate model does the same thing but with many more dimensions. did you not understand? Awwwwww shucks! Looks like you done it again [canned laughter]
The climate models in use thirty years ago when I was at school told us that by now, up here around 56 degrees north we'd be buried under a mile of ice, and that equatorial Africa would have a climate similar to Central Europe.
Please provide a link to the model in question, as well as a peer reviewed paper from the 1980s predicting a mile of ice covering land masses at 56 degrees north.
The climate models in use twenty years ago when I was at university told us that by now, the Earth would be fried by intense UV because of the complete unstoppable destruction of the ozone layer, with arid deserts reaching from the Sahara to as far north as Denmark - where it wasn't all submerged under water from the melting icecaps.
Please provide a link to the models in question, as well as a peer reviewed paper from the early 1990s making those predictions.
The climate models in use ten years ago when I worked on data visualisation for - among other things - weather modelling told us that by now, we'd be experiencing unprecedented storms, hurricane-force winds all year round, and bitterly cold winters and blistering hot summers that kill off all the arable crops.
Please provide a link to the models and peer reviewed papers from 2002 which make those predictions.
You'll have to forgive me if I don't entirely believe the climate predictions we hear today.
You'll have to forgive me if I think that you are intellectually dishonest and fraudulent - given:
1. In the 1980s to prevalent view on global warming was the same as it is now, and models from the 1980s accurately predict the warming we've seen since.
2. *I* was in university (studying science) in the early 1990s and the prevalent view of global warming at the time was exactly as it is now. In the early 90s the hole in the ozone layer had been known for 20 years, and satellites accurately mapped it's extent and growth - and the effects of UV were well known and not exaggerated.
3. In 2002 the prevailing view on climate was exactly as it is now, and no predictions were made in 2002 abotu what would be happening in 2012, apart from what we have subsequently observed
They're not just "openly" conducting the research, they're doing it with money from the government. So actually the situation is even better than you think.
Yes - as I said, it is fortunate that in some countries research which contradicts the prevailing view of the government and it's financial 'contributors' (such as the Heartland Institute) is allowed to continue, at least outside of North Carolina. In Australia such intellectual honesty is not permitted - governments threaten errant scientists with a loss of funding, while denialists openly threaten their lives and the lives of their families.
The government not only approves of what they do - it actually pays them to do it!
"Approves" is not the word you are looking for - tolerates, for the time being, might be more realistic description
(Don't worry! This source of funding does not in any way influence the results. Honest. There's no pressure to produce results that help to get more grant money in the future.)
I'm not actually that worried about the big money affecting the science - various attempts have been made (e.g. Lindzen ) but failed. The big money owns the policy makers and will continue to do so despite the blindingly obvious truth that the science is giving us.
A climate model does the same thing but with many more dimensions. The legislation is based on the notion that climate doesn't change and hence historical trends will be sufficient for predicting future climate. This, as another poster accurately quipped, is like a GPS based on travel times from a 100 years ago.
So logically then, all forms of prediction based on simulations of the real world must be banned in NC. I can well imagine the following conversation:
Officer: Sir, do you know why I have pulled you over?
Driver: Uh, I'm not sure officer
Officer: What is that on your dash?
Driver: It's a GPS, I'm -
Officer: And what does it say?
Driver: Well, see the thing is, I'm from out of town and -
Officer: SIR! I asked you a question
Driver:.... It says my destination is Ansonville and it's 22 minutes away
Officer: Step out of the car sir, and place your hands on the roof
So in a sense the fact that scientists in the U.S are still able to openly conduct this sort of research is good news, even if the discoveries they make are bad.
Cool groupthink, asshole
So, Denialists don't cherry pick the data? If I go trawl through climate discussions, I won't find cherry picking by denialists?
Yeah, the "ludicrous" standards are the kind of unfair, hardline standards we hold children to in science fairs. If you cannot hold yourself to them, you are a storyteller, not a scientist -- therefore anyone in the climatology field who refuses to even consider such rigours as beneath them is not only full of bullshit, but they aren't even a fucking scientist -- they're a fraud.
Climatologists are behaving fraudulently?
And it's safe to assume then, that the twin hypotheses proposed by by denialists:
1. There is no warming
2. CO2 is not a greenhouse gas
Are both held up to the kind of rigorous standards you mentioned?
They start with the statement of "It is a scientific fact that global warming is happening," which is true. That the Earth is getting warmer outside of known cycles is a claim of fact, something you can measure, and measurements show it is indeed correct. No problems there. However the problem then starts that they make a bunch of other claims, such as that if the warming continues Earth will be inhospitable, and so on, and want to claim that is all scientific fact too. No, not so much.
So - the difference between the part you accept and the part that you don't is .... what, exactly? You don't like bad news about the future? You don't like it?
It is the kind of thing that is actually up for a lot of debate since you have to evaluate all the different theories of what might happen, how well supported they are, and then pass a judgement call as to if it would be better or worse.
Well, there is really only 2 theories. The first one is that the climate will continue to get more energetic as we increase it's energy potential. This theory is based on observation and modelling of the physical world. The second is that the climate will not get more energetic for reasons we can't explain. This theory is based on the our predilection to burn stuff and cut things down.
Only one of these theories actually passes the lowest bar of intellectual honesty.
Thing is, they present it as just something you have to accept part and parcel. A situation of "If you deny any of this, you are denying the facts." No, not really. Anyone who says the Earth isn't warming is denying facts, unless they can show how the measurements that we use to reach that conclusion are flawed (given the measurements are world wide and spanning a century, it is possible, though unlikely, the conclusion is incorrect). However from that it does not automatically follow that things will be horrible.
The same science that tells us the earth is warming tells us what to expect from the future. Rejecting part of the science and accepting another part is like going to you oncologist and telling him that you will only accept a negative result. No. The same test the rules out cancer is the one that confirms it. The same test that tell you it's bad, but with treatment you will probably be okay, can also tell you that you will die. Rejecting one outcome because you would prefer that it not be true is not rational or defensible.
Compare that to the type of error that could arise using the human mission - human falls over (as they are wont to do), breaks femur. Compound fracture. How do we recover form this error, given the problem of the human lying in agony on the surface of Mars, bleeding internally and slowly dying. Or human falls over and breaks their faceplate - death, of course, comes mercifully swift, but just wondering, does this endanger one experiment, or many? Or two humans, in frustration and out of boredom due to the interminably long flight, then interminably long hours spent cooped up on the surface habitat get into a fight - as humans are wont to do. Can we reset them to correct the error?
It seems odd that you would criticise the robot for contaminating the environment, and then later say that you don't care about contamination, even approve of it. But then to the external observer many of the notions in support of reusing the technology of yesteryear (e.g. Horse drawn buggies, mine ponies, gas light, manned space travel) seem anachronistic and self contradictory.