How about "It's doing less harm than the fix would do. Let's keep going." Does that work for you?
Not for any reasonable definition of "work" because (a) you haven't demonstrated how the fix (reduction in emissions) will cost more than adapting to climate change and (b) We can safely assume that the fix will always need to be applied - which means that delays in mitigation means more must be spent - because the cost of the fix will not go down, and over time we must add the cost of rectifiying the damage. Therefore the longer the delay in applying the fix, the larger the cost.
For me the kicker is that I don't see a reason to mitigate global warming effects. Land is not that scarce. People and societies can and do move, particularly on the time scales that global warming acts. For example, there's enough people moving in the US that effectively the entire population moves every six or so years.
I'd like to see some actual numbers on that. For example, you've nominated the richest people on earth as being the most mobile - yet these people are the least affected by climate change, and also have the most (financial) capacity. So a non-exhaustive list of issues for you to cover in your reply include:
How would the poorest of the poor (who are also the most affected by climate change) demonstrate a comparable level of agility to migration patterns within the U.S, with it's financially solvent/agile citizens
How does involuntary movement (e.g. being a climate refugee) compare realistically to voluntary migration? (Your example)
What is the cost of replacing and providing infrastructure for these refugees, settling in a new country (Your example includes movements between well populated areas with existing infrastructure)
I'm a fan of the Tea Party (I won't go so far as to call myself a member, since it's kind of like Anonymous in that regard... It is what you want it to be)
Well, it isn't "what you want it to be". What it is is a PR campaign, conceived by a PR company, and funded and some very rich and powerful people, for the purposes of ensuring that their agenda steers America. And that agenda is to keep grinding the poor and middle classes into the dust while ensuring that cooperations pay no taxes and get access to lucrative government work - funded by the poor and middle classes. Reverse wealth re-distribution. When the Tea Party says "we want the government out of our pockets" by our they mean cooperations - and when they say "we want the government out of our lives" they mean they want private cooperations to provide the services that would otherwise provided by the government - they want those contracts. They cherry pick from US history (and whose history could not be cherry picked to tell whatever story you wanted?) to create the illusion that this was the society envisioned by Americas founding fathers. And they carefully construct an illusion that makes the Tea Party seem like a party of scrappers, of ordinary folk espousing the ideals of ordinary folk, when really, those people are just unpaid advertisers of big business and continuing the status quo, while America sinks.
Others worked on more pressing problems, like preventing catastrophic global warming, trying to avoiding using the remaining oil by fighting over it and making sure we are all fed.
Just out of interest, who is actually working on these things? How successful are they likely to be while the rest of the population are working in the opposite direction and moaning and screaming and having tantrums if they find that any of their money has been used to feed the poor, or redress global warming? These are problems of belief - for the theists amongst us, we might call it evil, or if you are a secular humanist, see it as an inherent flaw in the structure of our society. It is in any case not a problem solved purely by science - we already know the problem, and what to do to solve it, we just don't want to.
I'm pretty sure that other universes don't need to check with you and fill out a form or whatever it is you were expecting, before they are allowed to exist. Plenty of things exist without having "a point", plenty of things remain unobserved and exist regardless, even in our own space/time context.
You are confusing scientific proof with rhetoric. And I see that you have now abandoned your earlier assertion that the theory of AGW is untestable, and are now focussing on an argument that the burden of proof rests on me. My guess is that strategy will not work.
1) It may be that CO2 has specific spectral properties;
It does or it doesn't. Since scientists have known these properties since 1824, and the experiment demonstrating this is easily repeatable, the burden of proof is on those who assert, or carefully imply (as you have done) that there is some doubt about the spectral absorption behaviour of diatomic gases in the atmosphere.
(2) It may be that our estimates of our CO2 emissions are accurate;
Are they, or are they not? Show working.
Simply having 1 and 2 do not prove that humans are emitting so much CO2 as to overwhelm all other natural factors and cause warming that will be catastrophic to humanity as a whole, or even the biosphere as a whole.
What other natural factors?
What is their contribution to the atmospheric concentration of diatomic gases?
What happened to our contributions?
3) How can you tell the difference between an "unobserved forcing" and the forcing you wish to attribute to CO2?
Hardly my problem. I have no baseline assumption that such a forcing exists.
If you accept that AGW is unfalsifiable, all you have to do is take Roy Spencer's data, which contradicts the models that predict CAGW, and ignore it - assert some ad hoc pleading, and explain it away.
You assert that "AGW is unfalsifiable" yet have offered no proof. Roy Spencers "data" amounts to a concession on his part that AGW is real and happening. Which is groundbreaking in itself, but nothing we didn't already know.
1) CO2 does not contribute [positively] to global temperature - what would you *observe* to show that? Increasing CO2, all other factors held constant and no increase of temperature? (Have fun finding all other factors held constant:) )
So to summarise what you are saying - the claim made by some denialists that "CO2 does not contribute [positively] to global temperature" is untestable, and therefore unscientific. I'm with you there.
2) Humans do not contribute enough CO2 to cause global warming - again, what would you *observe* to show that? First you have to come up with what the minimum amount necessary to cause global warming - do you have that number? What would falsify *that* number?
So if I might summarise what you are saying - the assertion made by some opponents of the anthropogenic causes of the currently observed Climate Change that "Humans do not contribute enough CO2 to cause global warming" is in fact, untestable, and therefore not to be considered a scientific claim. I agree.
3) Human contributed CO2 is negated by other human factors - what *observation* would show that?
I agree again - the fact is, the people making these claims do not describe in any detail what the mitigating factors are. The factors are merely assumed and left undetailed. These claims are therefore not testable using the scientific method, so those who try to counter science based prediction using such an assertion can be safely ignored.
You're offering up "prove this, and then I'm wrong" - that's *not* how a falsifiable hypothesis works. I could say "prove that God doesn't exist by showing that all miracles are frauds", but that's still *not* a falsifiable hypothesis.
Indeed - you've stabbed deeply into the unprotected underbelly of the Global Warming denialist movement. To behave as if the burden of proof for your assertions rests with someone else is fundamentally flawed.
Put more bluntly, is there any observation of say, CO2 levels, extreme weather events, and global average temperature, that would falsify your hypothesis of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming? If we saw more CO2, less extreme weather, and lower global average temperature, over any period of time, would that be sufficient to falsify?
Yes indeed -
1. If it was observed that CO2 does not, in fact absorb radiation in the spectra or quantities it has repeatedly been observed and reported as doing.
2. If our calculations of the amount of CO2 we emit turned out to be off, such that we contributed zero (net) CO2 to the atmosphere (excepting some short cycle CO2 that behaves, instead, like water vapour).
3. If some other forcing that has previously been unobserved was suddenly observed, and simultaneously a mitigating factor from (1) was observed to explain how our CO2 was ineffective whilst another forcing effect was doing the exact amount of forcing we would have observed if it had been our CO2.
Probably also worth noting that if we accept your assertion that AGW is unfalsifiable, then the efforts of the Heartland Institute and the erstwhile Dr Roy Spencer to do just that via scientific observation are in fact invalid.
In my humble opinion, your comment is actually the key cause why so many people are sceptical about the science.
No - the reason that people deny the facts is that they don't like those facts. Many people interpret it as a statement contradicting their worldview (e.g the aspirational worldview) and therefore the work of "others" who seek to undermine our good and decent society. Or they see climate change as a matter of opinion, declare a contrary opinion, and expect a response from the science that seeks a middle ground - in much the way that politics works, those with the strongest rhetoric are expected to prevail. When the science does not budge, they grow hostile - for such people the notion of fact has a contradictory meaning to that portrayed by the sciences.
Especially when in the same breaths we are told that it is also too complicated for non-climate-scientists to understand, so we must just accept the "consensus" on pure faith.
Notably, it is those who deny the science who say that it is too complicated to be understood. When pressed to explain their theory, the theory they must have that explains their assertion - the assertion that some other factor is causing the earth to warm, at precisely the rate that we would expect, given our observations of the behaviour of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and our observations of the increased concentrations og greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due to our measurable emissions - when pressed to explain the mechanic behind this mother of all coincidences, they tell us it's all too complicated. Not so complicated, apparently, that they cannot be confident that the warming will stop before serious damage occurs. But too complicated for it ever to be discussed in public.
Unless you would care to take a punt at it?
This week, an Australian scientist published a peer-reviewed article based on actual water level measurements, that showed that water level rises are slowing and that based on an extrapolation of the observed data (not models), the most likely water level rise in Australian waters over the next century is 15cm. That is a far cry from the doom and gloom spouted by most climate advocates (like Al Gore - who most certainly isn't a scientist).
Really? Because my understanding of previous projections was that they were in that range - What was the previous figure that was quoted?
Is 15cm a little? I would have thought that a 15cm rise in sea height would have a devastating impact on say, coral reefs around the subtropical perimeter of Australia, on mangroves that line the tropics and their resident ecology, and on the fragile ecology of the river mouths? That a 15cm rise would destabilise beaches all around the coastline?
Personally, as a scientist and engineer, I am convinced that we are encountering climate change. To what extend that is man-made and to what extend it is natural is still not in any way shape or form a "consensus" to me. As an engineer, I believe climate models is a poor substitute for emperical data and based on how well scientists in other disciplines manage to model complex systems (think economists) - I think the jury is still very much out on what our climate will look like 100 years from now.
Let's not faff about.
So what is causing the climate change?
If you've looked at the empirical data and say that it proves the models wrong - how are the models wrong?
Why do climate scientists pretend they're the only ones who get targetted by death threats?
Strawman
Scientists studying in these other areas however, do not use this as an excuse to shirk their legal responsibility to make public the research that was funded by the tax payer
You think the scientists at the CRU had a legal responsibility to release the data? You're wrong.
Perhaps the excitement about Mars is that it IS further away. At least, slightly. In astronomical terms it is very close indeed. In any case I think you've assumed that the point of sending probes is to somehow precede a human colony. That is not the point at all - the probes replace the requirement for humans. So by sending probes, we learn about the destination environment, but we also get valuable feedback about remotely operating probes - which we then use to build better probes. One of the interesting facts about the Apollo missions was that even then, NASA knew that humans are really unsuited to space. They proposed to send a probe to Mars in response to advances made by the Soviet Union. Kennedy thought that landing a man on the moon made a better statement about American supremacy. It was never about advancing the human race at all. What we knew then, we know doubly now.
Why do people always say that there is no practical reason for space exploration? I just don't get it.
Hard to say without finding someone who is actually saying that. Mostly I just hear people saying that there is no practical reason for sending humans to do a robots job.
Titan is a wonderful example. A planet with literally 100's of times more hydrocarbons than Earth. That seems like a reasonable excuse to go there and develop mining and extraction techniques.
Well, Titan isn't a planet. Also it isn't possible to carry enough methane (by mass) to make it worthwhile to transport from Titan. It would take more energy to transport to the inner planets then we could gain from the cargo, meaning it's cheaper to manufacture on-site.
As I understand it (second hand information here) - if the stack of rods outside the chamber reach a certain temperature, then the structure that holds them apart (presumably a rack) will collapse due to heat stress, which will allow the rods to come into closer proximity -> more fission -> meltdown. Outside of the pool of water they start heating up straight away but the rods individually do not have enough mass to melt down. The fire that is causing this risk is not the rods themselves (although obviously the latent heat from decay contributes to the problem). Again, IANANP.
It's safe to assume that if the US possesses such a weapon, then in a war so will the enemy - if you can build it, so can they. Doesn't sound like a winning strategy.
Seems to conform to the standard meaning - not everybody gets excited by historical re-enactment (aka 'manned' missions). Some find that actual discovery excites.
We didn't lose the capability to repeat past exercises, it's more that we don't - we moved on, we can't be bothered. So, 'manned' spaceflight (even the term itself is a misogynistic anachronism) is exactly like other outdated technologies and techniques - steam engines, horse drawn carriages, the Supermarine Spitfire. We no longer have the capacity to produce thousands of Spitfires a year for the defence of Great Britain. Nevertheless, this is not a sign that our society has regressed - we could do it if there was a reason to, but the reason doesn't exist. What interest there is in this technology is as a recognition of it's historical significance.
And just as the jet engine has replaced the V12 Rolls Royce Merlin as the powerplant of choice for defensive aircraft, so to, robotic craft have replaced human carrying craft as the exploratory vehicle of choice for outer space. The reasons are obvious, they consume power only when they are needed, and are therefore lighter, more agile, and can travel far further, deliverying a hundred times the value. We might as well fantasise about steam propelled rockets, or rockets controlled by the tapping of keys on mechanical typewriters, as fantasise about craft that must carry human to function correctly.
Just so you know, if US law applies to Australians, then equally, Australian laws apply to Americans - to you. So here's what will happen if you continue with this farce.
We'll pass a law in our Parliament, say, making it illegal to be a dickhead. Then we'll arrest you. You can cool your heels in Long Bay - or maybe enjoy the comforts of one of our famous detention centres. Fair exchange?
An Australian citizen charged with espionage would be tried in a civilian court. He's not an enemy combatant.
When he starts waving a cheap AKM copy and firing at US soldiers, then we'll re-evaluate.
I don't know them and they don't know me. I can only assume they are going to look out for their best interests, I therefore must do the same. This does not hold true for my friends and neighbors who I can expect to consider my interests, at least to a degree.
Ethics has nothing to do with your perceived self interest.
"Because they deserve to benefit from technology and have good jobs too", is only a sound argument if those jobs are not being taken from people here. Where countries like India are concerned they are competitors, it might be a mostly friendly competition right now.
The difficulty with your "us versus them" approach is the definition of them. For example - there's plenty of Indians on Slashdot. No doubt someday they will outnumber americans on this forum. Your distinctions are verging on nonsensical.
Religiosity is mainly just a predisposition to value things like group solidarity
and the stability that comes from enforced conformity and hierarchical authority.
How do you figure? Most religions (for example Sunni Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Atheism and Protestant Christianity) don't have a hierarchy of authority, and don't seem to necessarily enforce conformity, at least any more than a secular organisation of the same size would. And (depending on where you are), believing one of those is more likely to lead to instability, homelessness and the like rather than encourage stability.
Someone who values these things (or fears the lack of them) more than they
value some kind of quest for truth or rationality or objectivity, is predisposed
to religion.
Is there any evidence for this? It seems from casual observation that rationality and a preference for objectivity are pretty evenly spread between people we would normally consider religious and those who aren't. And indeed, a typical western secular humanist believes all manner of irrational things for subjective reasons.
Main point from memo 1: This is not an story about the murder and rape of civilians, nor about our dealings with people we claim are our allies. This is a story about Julian Assange (make sure to realise that's a foreign sounding name!). He is a traitor to his country and a terrorist!... Whats that? Bradley? no, I don't know of anybody by that name.....
Main point of memo 2: Well, it turns out that Assange is not even American! He fooled us by speaking english and all. Anyway that means he hates America and hates our freedoms! Luckily, because he is not an american, he doesn't enjoy any rights himself. What's that? No, I won't comment about the government covering up afghan rapes, that's not the story here.
Is this the article where we actually discuss the things that were leaked, rather than the character of someone secondarily involved in the leaking? It would be kind of nice to hear about some prosecutions - have the people involved in the raping of that afghan boy been charged? Has the american company that procured the child - or the representatives thereof, faced justice? What about Mark Arbib? He passed on critical strategic information to the US - information that was withheld from both the parliament and the Australian people themselves. Will he be forced to resign?
Seems strange that this whole affair somehow got turned around to a discussion on the morality of Wikileaks and Julian himself, and the truly important matters are carefully left to one side.
Given that he won't get a cent from the movie (the author of the book didn't pay him royalties, and neither, it is likely, will the movie based on the book), that seems obvious.
It'll be kind of tricky to convince anybody of that unless you actually give some kind of proof, or evidence, or even some kind of convincing argument that makes that assertion plausible.
Slashdot Mirror
How about "It's doing less harm than the fix would do. Let's keep going." Does that work for you?
Not for any reasonable definition of "work" because (a) you haven't demonstrated how the fix (reduction in emissions) will cost more than adapting to climate change and (b) We can safely assume that the fix will always need to be applied - which means that delays in mitigation means more must be spent - because the cost of the fix will not go down, and over time we must add the cost of rectifiying the damage. Therefore the longer the delay in applying the fix, the larger the cost.
For me the kicker is that I don't see a reason to mitigate global warming effects. Land is not that scarce. People and societies can and do move, particularly on the time scales that global warming acts. For example, there's enough people moving in the US that effectively the entire population moves every six or so years.
I'd like to see some actual numbers on that. For example, you've nominated the richest people on earth as being the most mobile - yet these people are the least affected by climate change, and also have the most (financial) capacity. So a non-exhaustive list of issues for you to cover in your reply include:
I'm a fan of the Tea Party (I won't go so far as to call myself a member, since it's kind of like Anonymous in that regard... It is what you want it to be)
Well, it isn't "what you want it to be". What it is is a PR campaign, conceived by a PR company, and funded and some very rich and powerful people, for the purposes of ensuring that their agenda steers America. And that agenda is to keep grinding the poor and middle classes into the dust while ensuring that cooperations pay no taxes and get access to lucrative government work - funded by the poor and middle classes. Reverse wealth re-distribution. When the Tea Party says "we want the government out of our pockets" by our they mean cooperations - and when they say "we want the government out of our lives" they mean they want private cooperations to provide the services that would otherwise provided by the government - they want those contracts. They cherry pick from US history (and whose history could not be cherry picked to tell whatever story you wanted?) to create the illusion that this was the society envisioned by Americas founding fathers. And they carefully construct an illusion that makes the Tea Party seem like a party of scrappers, of ordinary folk espousing the ideals of ordinary folk, when really, those people are just unpaid advertisers of big business and continuing the status quo, while America sinks.
Others worked on more pressing problems, like preventing catastrophic global warming, trying to avoiding using the remaining oil by fighting over it and making sure we are all fed.
Just out of interest, who is actually working on these things? How successful are they likely to be while the rest of the population are working in the opposite direction and moaning and screaming and having tantrums if they find that any of their money has been used to feed the poor, or redress global warming? These are problems of belief - for the theists amongst us, we might call it evil, or if you are a secular humanist, see it as an inherent flaw in the structure of our society. It is in any case not a problem solved purely by science - we already know the problem, and what to do to solve it, we just don't want to.
I'm pretty sure that other universes don't need to check with you and fill out a form or whatever it is you were expecting, before they are allowed to exist. Plenty of things exist without having "a point", plenty of things remain unobserved and exist regardless, even in our own space/time context.
You're confusing necessary with sufficient.
You are confusing scientific proof with rhetoric. And I see that you have now abandoned your earlier assertion that the theory of AGW is untestable, and are now focussing on an argument that the burden of proof rests on me. My guess is that strategy will not work.
1) It may be that CO2 has specific spectral properties;
It does or it doesn't. Since scientists have known these properties since 1824, and the experiment demonstrating this is easily repeatable, the burden of proof is on those who assert, or carefully imply (as you have done) that there is some doubt about the spectral absorption behaviour of diatomic gases in the atmosphere.
(2) It may be that our estimates of our CO2 emissions are accurate;
Are they, or are they not? Show working.
Simply having 1 and 2 do not prove that humans are emitting so much CO2 as to overwhelm all other natural factors and cause warming that will be catastrophic to humanity as a whole, or even the biosphere as a whole.
What other natural factors?
What is their contribution to the atmospheric concentration of diatomic gases?
What happened to our contributions?
3) How can you tell the difference between an "unobserved forcing" and the forcing you wish to attribute to CO2?
Hardly my problem. I have no baseline assumption that such a forcing exists.
If you accept that AGW is unfalsifiable, all you have to do is take Roy Spencer's data, which contradicts the models that predict CAGW, and ignore it - assert some ad hoc pleading, and explain it away.
You assert that "AGW is unfalsifiable" yet have offered no proof. Roy Spencers "data" amounts to a concession on his part that AGW is real and happening. Which is groundbreaking in itself, but nothing we didn't already know.
1) CO2 does not contribute [positively] to global temperature - what would you *observe* to show that? Increasing CO2, all other factors held constant and no increase of temperature? (Have fun finding all other factors held constant :) )
So to summarise what you are saying - the claim made by some denialists that "CO2 does not contribute [positively] to global temperature" is untestable, and therefore unscientific. I'm with you there.
2) Humans do not contribute enough CO2 to cause global warming - again, what would you *observe* to show that? First you have to come up with what the minimum amount necessary to cause global warming - do you have that number? What would falsify *that* number?
So if I might summarise what you are saying - the assertion made by some opponents of the anthropogenic causes of the currently observed Climate Change that "Humans do not contribute enough CO2 to cause global warming" is in fact, untestable, and therefore not to be considered a scientific claim. I agree.
3) Human contributed CO2 is negated by other human factors - what *observation* would show that?
I agree again - the fact is, the people making these claims do not describe in any detail what the mitigating factors are. The factors are merely assumed and left undetailed. These claims are therefore not testable using the scientific method, so those who try to counter science based prediction using such an assertion can be safely ignored.
You're offering up "prove this, and then I'm wrong" - that's *not* how a falsifiable hypothesis works. I could say "prove that God doesn't exist by showing that all miracles are frauds", but that's still *not* a falsifiable hypothesis.
Indeed - you've stabbed deeply into the unprotected underbelly of the Global Warming denialist movement. To behave as if the burden of proof for your assertions rests with someone else is fundamentally flawed.
Put more bluntly, is there any observation of say, CO2 levels, extreme weather events, and global average temperature, that would falsify your hypothesis of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming? If we saw more CO2, less extreme weather, and lower global average temperature, over any period of time, would that be sufficient to falsify?
Yes indeed -
1. If it was observed that CO2 does not, in fact absorb radiation in the spectra or quantities it has repeatedly been observed and reported as doing.
2. If our calculations of the amount of CO2 we emit turned out to be off, such that we contributed zero (net) CO2 to the atmosphere (excepting some short cycle CO2 that behaves, instead, like water vapour).
3. If some other forcing that has previously been unobserved was suddenly observed, and simultaneously a mitigating factor from (1) was observed to explain how our CO2 was ineffective whilst another forcing effect was doing the exact amount of forcing we would have observed if it had been our CO2.
Probably also worth noting that if we accept your assertion that AGW is unfalsifiable, then the efforts of the Heartland Institute and the erstwhile Dr Roy Spencer to do just that via scientific observation are in fact invalid.
In my humble opinion, your comment is actually the key cause why so many people are sceptical about the science.
No - the reason that people deny the facts is that they don't like those facts. Many people interpret it as a statement contradicting their worldview (e.g the aspirational worldview) and therefore the work of "others" who seek to undermine our good and decent society. Or they see climate change as a matter of opinion, declare a contrary opinion, and expect a response from the science that seeks a middle ground - in much the way that politics works, those with the strongest rhetoric are expected to prevail. When the science does not budge, they grow hostile - for such people the notion of fact has a contradictory meaning to that portrayed by the sciences.
Especially when in the same breaths we are told that it is also too complicated for non-climate-scientists to understand, so we must just accept the "consensus" on pure faith.
Notably, it is those who deny the science who say that it is too complicated to be understood. When pressed to explain their theory, the theory they must have that explains their assertion - the assertion that some other factor is causing the earth to warm, at precisely the rate that we would expect, given our observations of the behaviour of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and our observations of the increased concentrations og greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due to our measurable emissions - when pressed to explain the mechanic behind this mother of all coincidences, they tell us it's all too complicated. Not so complicated, apparently, that they cannot be confident that the warming will stop before serious damage occurs. But too complicated for it ever to be discussed in public.
Unless you would care to take a punt at it?
This week, an Australian scientist published a peer-reviewed article based on actual water level measurements, that showed that water level rises are slowing and that based on an extrapolation of the observed data (not models), the most likely water level rise in Australian waters over the next century is 15cm. That is a far cry from the doom and gloom spouted by most climate advocates (like Al Gore - who most certainly isn't a scientist).
Really? Because my understanding of previous projections was that they were in that range - What was the previous figure that was quoted?
Is 15cm a little? I would have thought that a 15cm rise in sea height would have a devastating impact on say, coral reefs around the subtropical perimeter of Australia, on mangroves that line the tropics and their resident ecology, and on the fragile ecology of the river mouths? That a 15cm rise would destabilise beaches all around the coastline?
Personally, as a scientist and engineer, I am convinced that we are encountering climate change. To what extend that is man-made and to what extend it is natural is still not in any way shape or form a "consensus" to me. As an engineer, I believe climate models is a poor substitute for emperical data and based on how well scientists in other disciplines manage to model complex systems (think economists) - I think the jury is still very much out on what our climate will look like 100 years from now.
Let's not faff about.
So what is causing the climate change?
If you've looked at the empirical data and say that it proves the models wrong - how are the models wrong?
Why do climate scientists pretend they're the only ones who get targetted by death threats?
Strawman
Scientists studying in these other areas however, do not use this as an excuse to shirk their legal responsibility to make public the research that was funded by the tax payer
You think the scientists at the CRU had a legal responsibility to release the data? You're wrong.
Perhaps the excitement about Mars is that it IS further away. At least, slightly. In astronomical terms it is very close indeed. In any case I think you've assumed that the point of sending probes is to somehow precede a human colony. That is not the point at all - the probes replace the requirement for humans. So by sending probes, we learn about the destination environment, but we also get valuable feedback about remotely operating probes - which we then use to build better probes. One of the interesting facts about the Apollo missions was that even then, NASA knew that humans are really unsuited to space. They proposed to send a probe to Mars in response to advances made by the Soviet Union. Kennedy thought that landing a man on the moon made a better statement about American supremacy. It was never about advancing the human race at all. What we knew then, we know doubly now.
Why do people always say that there is no practical reason for space exploration? I just don't get it.
Hard to say without finding someone who is actually saying that. Mostly I just hear people saying that there is no practical reason for sending humans to do a robots job.
Titan is a wonderful example. A planet with literally 100's of times more hydrocarbons than Earth. That seems like a reasonable excuse to go there and develop mining and extraction techniques.
Well, Titan isn't a planet. Also it isn't possible to carry enough methane (by mass) to make it worthwhile to transport from Titan. It would take more energy to transport to the inner planets then we could gain from the cargo, meaning it's cheaper to manufacture on-site.
He is currently under house arrest - having been accused - but not charged - with an offense that normally carries a fine. Normally.
As I understand it (second hand information here) - if the stack of rods outside the chamber reach a certain temperature, then the structure that holds them apart (presumably a rack) will collapse due to heat stress, which will allow the rods to come into closer proximity -> more fission -> meltdown. Outside of the pool of water they start heating up straight away but the rods individually do not have enough mass to melt down. The fire that is causing this risk is not the rods themselves (although obviously the latent heat from decay contributes to the problem). Again, IANANP.
It's safe to assume that if the US possesses such a weapon, then in a war so will the enemy - if you can build it, so can they. Doesn't sound like a winning strategy.
Seems to conform to the standard meaning - not everybody gets excited by historical re-enactment (aka 'manned' missions). Some find that actual discovery excites.
It's hard to overstate My satisfaction.
And just as the jet engine has replaced the V12 Rolls Royce Merlin as the powerplant of choice for defensive aircraft, so to, robotic craft have replaced human carrying craft as the exploratory vehicle of choice for outer space. The reasons are obvious, they consume power only when they are needed, and are therefore lighter, more agile, and can travel far further, deliverying a hundred times the value. We might as well fantasise about steam propelled rockets, or rockets controlled by the tapping of keys on mechanical typewriters, as fantasise about craft that must carry human to function correctly.
More like a storm of shoulders shrugging - historical re-enactments aren't really that interesting for most people.
Just so you know, if US law applies to Australians, then equally, Australian laws apply to Americans - to you. So here's what will happen if you continue with this farce.
We'll pass a law in our Parliament, say, making it illegal to be a dickhead. Then we'll arrest you. You can cool your heels in Long Bay - or maybe enjoy the comforts of one of our famous detention centres. Fair exchange?
An Australian citizen charged with espionage would be tried in a civilian court. He's not an enemy combatant. When he starts waving a cheap AKM copy and firing at US soldiers, then we'll re-evaluate.
Experience tells us otherwise
I don't know them and they don't know me. I can only assume they are going to look out for their best interests, I therefore must do the same. This does not hold true for my friends and neighbors who I can expect to consider my interests, at least to a degree.
Ethics has nothing to do with your perceived self interest.
"Because they deserve to benefit from technology and have good jobs too", is only a sound argument if those jobs are not being taken from people here. Where countries like India are concerned they are competitors, it might be a mostly friendly competition right now.
The difficulty with your "us versus them" approach is the definition of them. For example - there's plenty of Indians on Slashdot. No doubt someday they will outnumber americans on this forum. Your distinctions are verging on nonsensical.
Religiosity is mainly just a predisposition to value things like group solidarity and the stability that comes from enforced conformity and hierarchical authority.
How do you figure? Most religions (for example Sunni Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Atheism and Protestant Christianity) don't have a hierarchy of authority, and don't seem to necessarily enforce conformity, at least any more than a secular organisation of the same size would. And (depending on where you are), believing one of those is more likely to lead to instability, homelessness and the like rather than encourage stability.
Someone who values these things (or fears the lack of them) more than they value some kind of quest for truth or rationality or objectivity, is predisposed to religion.
Is there any evidence for this? It seems from casual observation that rationality and a preference for objectivity are pretty evenly spread between people we would normally consider religious and those who aren't. And indeed, a typical western secular humanist believes all manner of irrational things for subjective reasons.
Did I miss something
Yes, you missed the memo.
Memos.
Main point from memo 1: This is not an story about the murder and rape of civilians, nor about our dealings with people we claim are our allies. This is a story about Julian Assange (make sure to realise that's a foreign sounding name!). He is a traitor to his country and a terrorist! ... Whats that? Bradley? no, I don't know of anybody by that name.....
Main point of memo 2: Well, it turns out that Assange is not even American! He fooled us by speaking english and all. Anyway that means he hates America and hates our freedoms! Luckily, because he is not an american, he doesn't enjoy any rights himself. What's that? No, I won't comment about the government covering up afghan rapes, that's not the story here.
Seems strange that this whole affair somehow got turned around to a discussion on the morality of Wikileaks and Julian himself, and the truly important matters are carefully left to one side.
Given that he won't get a cent from the movie (the author of the book didn't pay him royalties, and neither, it is likely, will the movie based on the book), that seems obvious.
It'll be kind of tricky to convince anybody of that unless you actually give some kind of proof, or evidence, or even some kind of convincing argument that makes that assertion plausible.