Him in this case, being radio broadcaster Alan Jones, darling of the ruling Liberal Party, who has recently been convicted of encouraging violence against Muslims in remarks he made before the Cronulla Riots last year.This conviction has resulted in a review of the broadcasting guidelines by Helen Coonan, federal Communications Minister, who indicated she thought the judgement wrong.
I guess it's ok to incite hatred and violence, provided it's directed at Muslims
I guess it's ok to call other Australians scum, as long as they are Muslim
I wonder what is going to happen when the politicians who have sold thier souls to the record industry group realize that the people who they sold out are VOTERS. it doesn't take a very large group of extreemly motivitated people to swing an election.
I predict an interesting time in Aussie politics in about 3 years. Then, Payback time.
In any case, I doubt that copyright issues will rate a mention in the federal election. The touchpoint issue for Australians right now is climate change.
You typically only have one service provider in a given area. Really? In rural/regional areas I suppose you might be stuck with Telstra, but I wouldn't describe that as typical. In metropolitan areas you can choose from numerous carriers - Telstra may own the hardware (mostly) but that doesn't entitle them to say who uses it.
The hypothesis of Climate-Scientists is that there is a long term human caused global warming trend, in order to prove it you first must show that the warming trend is long term (something which we can only do by waiting, say, 150 years) then that it is human caused, and finally that it is a global problem none of which can be solved by a thermometer.
I guess you missed the part where we ceased to rely on predictions of the future because we are observing the predicted results right now. I guess you missed the fact that the Anthropogenic causes of Climate Change are almost universally accepted as the only model which fits the data we are actively observing. You might well have alternate theories, but if so, you need to present those theories and convince us. Otherwise, your views will continue to have the credence of those people who believe that because their Grandma lived to ninety and smoked all her life, that this one data point dismisses the theory that smoking causes lung cancer. It is not up to us to prove anything to you, anymore than we need to convince every hardened addict before the links between smoking and lung cancer can be considered true.
In the middle ages they were growing grapes in England (something we can not do now), and we're just leaving a period which was called the Little Ice age, so its not necessarily any warmer than it used to be nor is it necessarily a man made event. Once again, for me to be right all I have to do is find some problem with the methodology, data, or conclusions in order for me to be correct.
But the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period have been debunked repeatedly on Slashdot. Have you not read any previous discussions on these topics?
I'm going to give you a brief lesson in logic, you can't prove the non-existence of something; I can't prove that there is no global warming, there is no god, or there are not gremlins are living among us. This is why the emphasis is on proving that you're correct.
I repeat - we aren't playing logic games here. We are talking about observed phenomena. You claim that you have alternate theories that explain these observed phenomena - presumably, theories that predicted the current temperature rise by observing sunspot activity 20 years ago. Right? Except of course, sunspots are shortlived phenomena (a period shorter than the period of temperature change that we have observed) and have been debunked long ago as a contributor to climate change. I suggest you spend some time perusing www.realclimate.org - many myths are debunked there.
With global warming I can choose which facts I use to discredit a study, say that there is a greater corelation between sunspot activity and global warming (in spite of it not increasing the irradiance of light hitting the earth) then there is to all greenhouse gasses; in order for his theory to be true, it must explain why my counter argument is meaningless.
No, you can't merely grasp at straws and dismiss a credible scientific argument. Why? Because no-one will believe you. In order to dismiss a credible theory which explains observed phenomena you need to propose an alternate theory that is equally credible - or more. You have not done so. We might all wish that ACW were not true, it takes guts to accept that we (albeit unknowingly) screwed up so badly, and will have to work hard for a long time to undo the damage. But that doesn't mean we will be intellectually cowed, regardless of emotion.
Essentially, the Scientific Methodology works because your theory can withstand all attacks not that someone couldn't find a counter argument.
But you openly admit that you don't have an attack you can mount - you are merely asserting theories that were debunked long ago.
I was initially questioning whether it was possible, not that it was a fact...
But you seem to believe in global warming on a level usually res
When given inconclusive evidence it makes sense to stand back and say "I don't know what is going on, but I remain open to arguments." Understandably then, when you attempt to contradict the weight of scientific evidence with mere supposition and an apparent reluctance to reveal any detail we are skeptical about your assertion that the earth is not getting warmer. You claim the evidence is inconclusive, but apparently, you are unable to demonstrate how.
Being that there is no way to verify the hypothesis' of Climate-Scientists, Apart from looking at a thermometer.
it is important to continue to question their results; we don't have spare planets to test their results on so it is important that "someone" questions their hypothesis. It's now hotter than it used to be. This is profoundly obvious. This is measurable, repeatable, observable. All that is left then is for you to demonstrate some evidence, some profound insight to convince us that our repeated observations are wrong.
In order to demonstrate a flawed model all I have to do is demonstrate is that their anti-hypothesis "Global-warming is not occuring" is within the margin of error of their model; if this happens their model is invalid and no conclusions can be drawn from its predictions. Go on then. Quit with the chattering. Show us the money.
I'm pretty agnostic when it comes to global warming
Why? Given the gravity of the situation, surely the sensible position is to objectively examine the evidence, and draw conclusions? It doesn't make sense to me to simply turn your back and say "I don't know what's going on" - sounds like denial.
(usually arguing against it because someone has to) Why? If you have no opinion, why argue against it? Why do you think "someone has to?" . Must someone argue against the links between smoking and lung cancer? What about mathematical proofs?
and I recently began to wonder what the consequence of a (very small) error would be in a computer simulation. Suppose that you (as a climate researcher) underestimated the effect that a warming trend caused by CO2 would have on plant growth, or overestimated the impact of CO2 on warming; But plant growth (either more or less) would be calculated by the model, not estimated by the scientist. And the heat coefficient of CO2 is well understood, as is the composition of the atmosphere. As for error, this can be reduced by repeating the experiment. If you wish to assert that the models are wrong, then it is insufficient just to speculate, you need to propose a model which produces a 'more accurate' result. Otherwise, we'll do the sensible thing and accept the science as is.
I agree there are a number of data points that are moving, but what does that mean? Is it part of a natural cycle, is it a response to a natural event, is it a response to mans actions. Should I be worried, should I take action, what action, when, how.
Since the shifts in temperature we have observed correlate to the output of climate models, it seems reasonable to conclude that these shifts are the result of greenhouse gas emissions from anthropological sources.
Again targeting one variable, CO2, in a complex system is doomed to failure. All the more so, if we do not understand what all the variables are and how they interact.
Obviously, there is an element of optimism, if we wanted to be pessimistic we should all lay down and die right now. But since we have demonstrated that we are capable of (inadvertantly) causing the problem, it's reasonable to assume that by deliberate action, we can reverse the trend if we act now. And not just target CO2, but all forms of greenhouse gas emission.
I'm not saying the weather doesn't change I am saying man cannot predicte it or it's causes with any certainty. I go further and say we as yet do not fully comprehend our eco-system. To base any overt action on climatology is to base your actions on clairvoyance.
But, as previous discussed on multiple occasions, we are not talking about weather, we are talking about climate. If you do not understand the difference, are you really qualified to criticise climatologists? If a doctor said to you "You've got cancer" is it reasonable to say "but I felt fine last tuesday - HAH! explain that! You must be wrong! - I'll do nothing". No: the reasonable course of action is to listen to the facts, to weigh the facts against the authority of the person stating them, and then act. And act immediately - not prevaricate, not procrastinate.
I tend towards a centered disposition, so acting without action whould seem to be me to be the best action. This can quite easily be mistaken for acting like an ostrich but can never be mistaken for acting without cause.
When considering an issue of some consequence, I always adopt a risk-based approach. If I feel a lingering form of sickness, I go to the doctor, rather than hope it gets better by itself. If I find signs of white ants in my house, I call an inspector, rather than rely on the chance that the ants will leave my house alone. If I hear reports of government corruption or collusion, I do what I can to make sure the matter is pursued, rather than trust them to always do the right thing without oversight.
So, there is a chance that science is wrong, but science is probably right. What would a risk based approach tell us?
Risk #1
Major climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions from humans: Probable
Well, I suppose it depends on what you mean by "consensus". Certainly not all qualified scientists believe "human caused global warming" is a dominant factor in current climate change. You might check this 2002 article (for instance):
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/14/161152.shtml
How many climatologists or otherwise qualified scientists actually disagree with the anthropogenic causes of global warming? Can you cite something that gives it in rough percentage terms? The article you linked to mentions 3 scientists, speaking on behalf of the Frontiers of Freedom Institute , a front for big oil, set up specifically to combat environmental regulation. Is that the "voice of science"?
The one tangible thing that's been done to try and address global warming is the Kyoto Protocol. It is quite flawed, though, in that it gives exemptions to the countries which are most likely to be big polluters in coming decades.
Certainly, the Kyoto protocol does not go far enough, and carbon trading should (and probably will) be introduced as soon as possible. This does not make it flawed, specific exemptions were given to China and India so that they would have time to develop cleaner means of generating electricity, time that they have used well, I might add, since they have both reduced their carbon footprints and have substantial nuclear infrastructure. These exemptions only apply for a set period (15 years, I believe) in recognition that strong economies in those countries help the world in general. In contrast the concessions made for Australia and the US (revolving around the defintion of carbon sinks) were ongoing, yet those countries refused to sign, and in both cases, their carbon footprint has increased.
It would also impose economic penalties on countries like the US which are already doing quite a lot to reduce their environmental impact.
The US has done and is doing virtually nothing to reduce your carbon footprint, and ought, by rights, be penalised. The average US person has a carbon footprint 20 times the size of the average Indian. Someone has to pay for your indulgence - it should be you.
If/.ers want to rally around a single approach that would be beneficial not just to human related global warming if it exists, but also to energy independence and reduced pollution, do whatever you can to advocate constructing new nuclear reactors here in the US. That is the single best thing we could do at this point.
The majority of Slahdotters are not from the US, if the demographic from the rest of the web is true here. So we cannot advocate for more nuclear reactors in the US. What we can (and will) do, is advocate for a carbon trading scheme - user pays.
You failed to mention that the article he debunked asserted that there was a global conspiracy headed by the UN to promote the concept fo global warming in order to establish a world government. Is that really the domain of serious science? Hmmm?
That site is called junkscience, and it is. We've seen this before, when a major problem becomes evident, a certain proportion of people simply cannot cope with the scale of the problem, nor what is required as a response to the problem. For example, when science revealed that smoking causes lung cancer, many people with a lot to lose denied it - some people still justify smoking to themselves. Despite (almost total) consensus in the scientific and medical community, they refuse to acknowledge the harm they caused to themselves by smoking (albeit unknowingly), and consequently the harm they continue to do. The same principles apply to denying global warming: it's frightening to have come to the end of our credit spree of fossil fuel usage, it's frightening to consider that we have damaged the environment in a way that dwarfs whatever achievements we had thought we had made. So, frightened, we deny, deny, deny.
I've read the article. The same old debunked myths: Medieval Warm Period? Debunked.
Why is a CO2 molecule from India OK and one from the US evil?
Myth debunked.
Why is ONE CO2 molecule from India evil, yet 20 from the US OK? Industrialised countries (including my own) are to blame for global warming, because we contributed the vast bulk of the extra C02 present in the atmosphere. It's absurd to suggest that yet again developing countries should pay for our lifestyle.
India has ratified the Kyoto protocol -
the US has not. China has ratified the protocol.The only standouts not intending to ratify are the US and Australia. And, despite the reticence of our government
80% of Australians want to ratify the protocol. Why? Because it is in our interests to do so. It is in our interest to act now, rather than paying later.
Come back with a set of Kyoto Accords that bans the CO2 emissions no matter what country they come from. Until they, it's all politics and not even worth consideration.
Why don't you come back when you have an argument to present to us that is worth our consideration? These tired, anachronistic, factually incorrect spiels about the evils of other countries are boring and hint at racism.
Per vehicle emissions and per manufacturing plant emissions would be equalized first (i.e., they need to match West Europe's pollution standards for cars, trucks and manufacturing plants) and then water pollution would be equalized next.
Clearly, you don't understand what's being discussed - and also, you seem to expect that they ought to be answerable to your concerns, when all those countries are doing more to combat global warming than you are. I don't see any indians, chinese or indonesians here bitching and whining. Just you. I'll repeat what I said - the US has a higher total output of greenhouse inducing gases, higher than china, higher than india, higher than indonesia. Per capita, the average american contributes 20 times as much as the average indian.
Secondly, whom will get to measure the output levels given the credibility issues with China, India and Indonesia's official numbers.
Why would Chinese, Indian or Indonesian official numbers be less credible than those of the US? Care to elaborate on why the worlds largest democracy, and the worlds second largest democracy (being India and Indonesia respectively) should be less believable than a country that refuses even to accept responsibility for it's actions?
If China, India, and Indonesia and the 2/3rds of the world's population they contain reduce their pollution levels to the current level of the UK, US, Canada, or France, then I am willing for the USA to consider reducing its level of pollution.
I'll take you at your word:
The US is by far the largest contributor of emissions, with China a distant second. Per capita, it's 5 chinese to 1 american contribution and 20 Indians. So. What's first on your agenda, buying a smaller car and telling your neighbours why, writing to your congressman, or joining in a march?
Sure, maybe 50 years in the future, when solar technology advances to the point where it can produce energy on the scale that we currently get by burning coal and gas.
But that's merely a matter of investment. Solar is more expensive than coal/gas in the old economic terms, but not less viable technically. To make solar work, we just have to invest enough to build and maintain it. Coal and gas are not a viable energy source into the future because we cannot afford to keep burning it - by burning it we are crippling our agricultural production/fisheries and those things are more important than having an electric light on and paying nothing. You will need to adjust your thinking for the new economics.
I've got a news flash for you. If solar power was in any way, shape, or form ready to replace coal as a primary power source, it would have happened by now, hydrogen or no.
What do you base that on? Surely you realise that there is capital investment in coal power stations, in the infrastructure that maintains them (eg railways, coal mines) and that the primary reason for wanting to keep them is that coal producers (like Australia) want to sell coal and employ coal miners, and those with coal burning power stations are reluctant to spend the money to build solar/nuclear/other power stations instead. But on the scale of climate change, those considerations aren't important.
I guess we'll find out then. You'll owe a lot of people an apology for misleading them when the world doesn't end.
Strawman argument (since I didn't say the world would end)
One question: Since you know the future, you should be able to make tons of money with that knowledge. Especially, you seem to know all about the future of oil. Have you invested all your money in the oil futures market? Why not? It would seem to be the rational thing to do if you knew the future. Unless you don't...
So, let me ask you in return: do you imagine that oil will just keep flowing from the ground? Can you then explain the empty oil fields and drop off in production?
What's the historical precdedent for doomsday theories being rational?
Doomsday predictions are always wr
Well I'm sure they are not, and in any case, it's irrelevant, since we aren't speaking of doomsday predictions, but rather an established fact (peak oil), and picture of the future understood and accpeted by the overwhelming majority of both scientists and the general public (climate change).
Are you sure you mean reason and not irrational fear?
Since it's not irrational to take into account what is objective fact (peak oil) and what is highly probable (global warming) the poster must have meant rational. What would be irrational would be to ignore these anthropogenic phenomena and their effect on our future.
How are those possible futures supposed to affect health anyway?
Economic collapse, massive loss of arable land, an increase in infections + decrease in the quality of our diets (eg no seafood). Rampant inflation (since agricultural commodities will be difficult and transport nigh on impossible without oil, water and soil). The biggest extinction event ever will likely have massive psychological effects - which is in itself a health problem. But thanks for asking.
But to be more specific, we need a backup plan for Earth.
The backup plan you are proposing is somewhat like taking a backup of a DVD by using a floppy disk - the 'backup' only captures a fraction of what needs to be captured, and even at the worst extant, the original is safer than the backup itself. Even if an asteroid crashes into the Earth, the latter will still be more livable than mars or the moon or a can in space. Even if it were morally acceptable to let billions of people die because we preferred to 'have a backup' rather than make the earth defensible from asteroids by detecting the asteroids and diverting them before they hit the earth. Thus saving the billions of lives you casually disregard.
I'm not sure the first settlers in North America would have called it the high life -- seeing as how the first colonies failed due to starvation, massacre and freezing to death in the winter. Undeveloped North America was pretty hostile to people used to nice warm, cultivated Europe.
Guess you didn't know, but when the pasty faced Europeans arrived in the americas, it was already successfully populated by other people. You must have been away when they covered that at school.
Try this one -- how about the first settlers in North America who came here during an ice age? Crossing the Bearing land bridge during an ice age must have been quite the high life for a bunch of people to whom animal skins were the cutting edge in protective garments.
But those people were following the game, and hunted and fished as they went along. Did you imagine they just woke up one day and said "say! let's trudge across the ice in that direction for months and months - for no reason?" Because that's not what happened.
Yes, going into space is different than anything we've done before. We're going where Mommy Nature hasn't already checked things out and made sure they're safe for us. Welcome to the adolescence of your species. I know it's tempting never to let go of mommy's hand, but eventually you really should. It's better
You chaps are good at putting forward false analogies aren't you? Pity you can't make a reasoned argument to support your position.
Ultimately it doesn't matter though. As others have pointed out, if you win and we sit huddled on this rock eventually an asteroid or comet will come along, pound us into extinction and give another species a chance.
I've already dealt fully with that one - go read the other posts.
No, you've pretty much demonstrated your lack of imagination (and as is usual with such an attitude, you are completely oblivious to your own deficiency). You seem to be stuck thinking that any successful space-going colony is going to be just like an ISS-on-steroids
This discussion has nothing to do with what you or I might imagine in terms of the shape, size or location for a space station. This discussion is about your failure to prove demonstrable benefit from having humans in space - long or short term. You imagine that the idea has merit simply because it's an idea, and abhor practical value - you assume objective benefit for something you merely BELIEVE to be good. You try to dismiss my assertion that in order to actually benefit human kind, your idea must be demonstrably beneficial by claiming that I lack in imagination. But you know in your heart that you aren't a visionary, you are merely a fanatic.
However, just implementing that kind of system wouldn't help with any other potential global catastrophes like a worldwide plague, or complete environmental collapse, or nuclear war. But hey, it's not like we're cynically condemning all the life on Earth by not trying to establish off-planet "backups".
If you are worried about plagues, let your kids play outside, contribute to medicines sans frontieres, and marry an asian person. Genetic diversity, combating poverty and third world disease, good health and immune systems are a killer for diseaes - literally. As for the other supposedly scary disasters, they aren't probable enough to scare me - if you are afraid, see a therapist or get a little squeeze ball, I'm sure it will help enormously. And learn the principles of risk management - that will help your distorted view of reality.
And, and if we DID need an offsite backup the solution is easy - a big barrel of frozen embryos planted in space. When the earth recovers from disaster, the barrel automatically thaws and gestates the embryos, and releases them onto the earth. Bingo. We're back baby! None of the stupidity of trying to keep humans alive on an airless planet/puny space station for tens of thousands of years, whilst the earth recovers from disaster.
Good thing you weren't around when the first explorers from Europe found the Americas.
When the Europeans arrived in the Americas, it was already populated by humans living the high life. Are humans already in interstellar space or on mars, living the high life?
Or when some hominid was thinking about maybe seeing what was outside that big valley in Africa.
When the hominid left the valley, the world outside was already filled with other species living the high life - is interstellar space already filled with goodies for us to eat, and other species, living the life of luxury?
No?
Well gee. Looks like your silly analogy just rolled over and showed me it's oh! So yummy, soft, underbelly. Once again, when it was vital for you to present a reason for us to support a mars colony/space station/interstellar expedition of humans, you've failed to give us ANY reason, ANY reason at all why this proposal should get any focus.
A "hen" isn't capable of building a new city on that desolate rock, complete with gardens & living areas.
But we can't either, since we, as much as hens, are completely reliant on nature for provisions. Witness our addiction to oil, as a good example.
You've got a really limited imagination, don't you?
There's nothing wrong with my imagination - it's just that I have thought through the practicalities/implications of what you are proposing, and you (as you have amply demonstrated), have not.
Do you really think that a mass space expansion is going to involve tiny little colonies on the scale of the current Space Station?
Since the parent was speaking of interstellar travel, and not extra orbital space stations, then yes, that is what we are speaking of - interstellar travel is 2 or three human lifetimes spent in the darkness of interstellar space, inside a capsule.
There are a lot of people right now who live their entire lives within one city on the ground - their lives wouldn't be much different if they were living in a Los Angeles metro area (+ surrounding farmland)-sized space station, and there's nothing that says you can't have regular shuttle flights between the Earth & other space-stations/colonies
Wellll yes there is, because, like the current space station, there is no reason for those proposed space stations to exist - owing to your admittance that there is no practical way to travel outside the solar system, and just as the general population is unmoved by the presence of an orbital space station, they are likely to become quickly bored with any extra orbital station or quasi colony. And begin to wonder why, given there is no practical reason for those stations to exist, we should be wasting our precious resources maintaining them.
Even if we never figure out how to leave the solar system, it's not in our (Earth-based biological life forms) best interests to sit around waiting for an asteroid or comet to wipe out all life on the planet.
It's not for you to dictate to us what is in our best interests and what is not. Wiping out 6 billion plus people, plus every other species in its entirety, but preserving the life of a few thousand humans is not a successful outcome. Particularly in comparison with a system that gives early detection of objects on a collision course and diverts the object away. Entirely possible, and with the advantage of being ethical and not monstrous in cynically condemning billions of people/species to death. And - it doesn't require the stupidity of having humans in space, where they don't belong.
There's a _lot_ of building material out there in the solar system, especially if you figure out how to use the material from the Oort Cloud (outside of the planetary part of the system, but still within gravitational area of the Sun). Once we have a solid presence in space, instead of having to use the Earth as a base, then there are all kinds of things that are possible.
All sorts of things are possible - it's possible to keep a bear alive in a cage for years, while your tap its bile to make medicine. Because it's possible to do so doesn't mean we should do it.
Slashdot Mirror
I predict an interesting time in Aussie politics in about 3 years. Then, Payback time.
Don't quite follow the timing on that one. According to the AEC http://www.aec.gov.au/_content/When/elections/faqIn any case, I doubt that copyright issues will rate a mention in the federal election. The touchpoint issue for Australians right now is climate change.
The hypothesis of Climate-Scientists is that there is a long term human caused global warming trend, in order to prove it you first must show that the warming trend is long term (something which we can only do by waiting, say, 150 years) then that it is human caused, and finally that it is a global problem none of which can be solved by a thermometer.
I guess you missed the part where we ceased to rely on predictions of the future because we are observing the predicted results right now. I guess you missed the fact that the Anthropogenic causes of Climate Change are almost universally accepted as the only model which fits the data we are actively observing. You might well have alternate theories, but if so, you need to present those theories and convince us. Otherwise, your views will continue to have the credence of those people who believe that because their Grandma lived to ninety and smoked all her life, that this one data point dismisses the theory that smoking causes lung cancer. It is not up to us to prove anything to you, anymore than we need to convince every hardened addict before the links between smoking and lung cancer can be considered true.
In the middle ages they were growing grapes in England (something we can not do now), and we're just leaving a period which was called the Little Ice age, so its not necessarily any warmer than it used to be nor is it necessarily a man made event. Once again, for me to be right all I have to do is find some problem with the methodology, data, or conclusions in order for me to be correct.
But the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period have been debunked repeatedly on Slashdot. Have you not read any previous discussions on these topics?
I'm going to give you a brief lesson in logic, you can't prove the non-existence of something; I can't prove that there is no global warming, there is no god, or there are not gremlins are living among us. This is why the emphasis is on proving that you're correct.
I repeat - we aren't playing logic games here. We are talking about observed phenomena. You claim that you have alternate theories that explain these observed phenomena - presumably, theories that predicted the current temperature rise by observing sunspot activity 20 years ago. Right? Except of course, sunspots are shortlived phenomena (a period shorter than the period of temperature change that we have observed) and have been debunked long ago as a contributor to climate change. I suggest you spend some time perusing www.realclimate.org - many myths are debunked there.
With global warming I can choose which facts I use to discredit a study, say that there is a greater corelation between sunspot activity and global warming (in spite of it not increasing the irradiance of light hitting the earth) then there is to all greenhouse gasses; in order for his theory to be true, it must explain why my counter argument is meaningless.
No, you can't merely grasp at straws and dismiss a credible scientific argument. Why? Because no-one will believe you. In order to dismiss a credible theory which explains observed phenomena you need to propose an alternate theory that is equally credible - or more. You have not done so. We might all wish that ACW were not true, it takes guts to accept that we (albeit unknowingly) screwed up so badly, and will have to work hard for a long time to undo the damage. But that doesn't mean we will be intellectually cowed, regardless of emotion.
Essentially, the Scientific Methodology works because your theory can withstand all attacks not that someone couldn't find a counter argument.
But you openly admit that you don't have an attack you can mount - you are merely asserting theories that were debunked long ago.
I was initially questioning whether it was possible, not that it was a fact... But you seem to believe in global warming on a level usually res
(usually arguing against it because someone has to) Why? If you have no opinion, why argue against it? Why do you think "someone has to?" . Must someone argue against the links between smoking and lung cancer? What about mathematical proofs? and I recently began to wonder what the consequence of a (very small) error would be in a computer simulation. Suppose that you (as a climate researcher) underestimated the effect that a warming trend caused by CO2 would have on plant growth, or overestimated the impact of CO2 on warming; But plant growth (either more or less) would be calculated by the model, not estimated by the scientist. And the heat coefficient of CO2 is well understood, as is the composition of the atmosphere. As for error, this can be reduced by repeating the experiment. If you wish to assert that the models are wrong, then it is insufficient just to speculate, you need to propose a model which produces a 'more accurate' result. Otherwise, we'll do the sensible thing and accept the science as is.Why? Given the gravity of the situation, surely the sensible position is to objectively examine the evidence, and draw conclusions? It doesn't make sense to me to simply turn your back and say "I don't know what's going on" - sounds like denial.
Obviously, there is an element of optimism, if we wanted to be pessimistic we should all lay down and die right now. But since we have demonstrated that we are capable of (inadvertantly) causing the problem, it's reasonable to assume that by deliberate action, we can reverse the trend if we act now. And not just target CO2, but all forms of greenhouse gas emission.
But, as previous discussed on multiple occasions, we are not talking about weather, we are talking about climate. If you do not understand the difference, are you really qualified to criticise climatologists? If a doctor said to you "You've got cancer" is it reasonable to say "but I felt fine last tuesday - HAH! explain that! You must be wrong! - I'll do nothing". No: the reasonable course of action is to listen to the facts, to weigh the facts against the authority of the person stating them, and then act. And act immediately - not prevaricate, not procrastinate.
When considering an issue of some consequence, I always adopt a risk-based approach. If I feel a lingering form of sickness, I go to the doctor, rather than hope it gets better by itself. If I find signs of white ants in my house, I call an inspector, rather than rely on the chance that the ants will leave my house alone. If I hear reports of government corruption or collusion, I do what I can to make sure the matter is pursued, rather than trust them to always do the right thing without oversight.
So, there is a chance that science is wrong, but science is probably right. What would a risk based approach tell us?
Risk #1
Major climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions from humans: Probable
Consequence: Extreme
Recommendation: Mitigate
The US has done and is doing virtually nothing to reduce your carbon footprint, and ought, by rights, be penalised. The average US person has a carbon footprint 20 times the size of the average Indian. Someone has to pay for your indulgence - it should be you.
The majority of Slahdotters are not from the US, if the demographic from the rest of the web is true here. So we cannot advocate for more nuclear reactors in the US. What we can (and will) do, is advocate for a carbon trading scheme - user pays.You failed to mention that the article he debunked asserted that there was a global conspiracy headed by the UN to promote the concept fo global warming in order to establish a world government. Is that really the domain of serious science? Hmmm?
But oddly, just the opposite is happening in my country, where you can be defunded by the Government for describing the effects of Global Warming in detail, or admitting that it is happening. Yet scientists still do tell us that global warming is proceeding apace (in case we couldn't see it happening for ourselves..)
I've read the article. The same old debunked myths: Medieval Warm Period? Debunked.
Variations in the output of the Sun? Debunked.
It's all a left wing myth perpetrated by the UN to set up a World Government? - Left as a exercise for the reader.
Myth debunked.
Why is ONE CO2 molecule from India evil, yet 20 from the US OK? Industrialised countries (including my own) are to blame for global warming, because we contributed the vast bulk of the extra C02 present in the atmosphere. It's absurd to suggest that yet again developing countries should pay for our lifestyle.
India has ratified the Kyoto protocol - the US has not. China has ratified the protocol.The only standouts not intending to ratify are the US and Australia. And, despite the reticence of our government 80% of Australians want to ratify the protocol. Why? Because it is in our interests to do so. It is in our interest to act now, rather than paying later.
Come back with a set of Kyoto Accords that bans the CO2 emissions no matter what country they come from. Until they, it's all politics and not even worth consideration.
Why don't you come back when you have an argument to present to us that is worth our consideration? These tired, anachronistic, factually incorrect spiels about the evils of other countries are boring and hint at racism.
Clearly, you don't understand what's being discussed - and also, you seem to expect that they ought to be answerable to your concerns, when all those countries are doing more to combat global warming than you are. I don't see any indians, chinese or indonesians here bitching and whining. Just you. I'll repeat what I said - the US has a higher total output of greenhouse inducing gases, higher than china, higher than india, higher than indonesia. Per capita, the average american contributes 20 times as much as the average indian.
Secondly, whom will get to measure the output levels given the credibility issues with China, India and Indonesia's official numbers.
Why would Chinese, Indian or Indonesian official numbers be less credible than those of the US? Care to elaborate on why the worlds largest democracy, and the worlds second largest democracy (being India and Indonesia respectively) should be less believable than a country that refuses even to accept responsibility for it's actions?
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/each- countrys-share-of-co2-emissions.html
The US is by far the largest contributor of emissions, with China a distant second. Per capita, it's 5 chinese to 1 american contribution and 20 Indians. So. What's first on your agenda, buying a smaller car and telling your neighbours why, writing to your congressman, or joining in a march?
But that's merely a matter of investment. Solar is more expensive than coal/gas in the old economic terms, but not less viable technically. To make solar work, we just have to invest enough to build and maintain it. Coal and gas are not a viable energy source into the future because we cannot afford to keep burning it - by burning it we are crippling our agricultural production/fisheries and those things are more important than having an electric light on and paying nothing. You will need to adjust your thinking for the new economics.
I've got a news flash for you. If solar power was in any way, shape, or form ready to replace coal as a primary power source, it would have happened by now, hydrogen or no.
What do you base that on? Surely you realise that there is capital investment in coal power stations, in the infrastructure that maintains them (eg railways, coal mines) and that the primary reason for wanting to keep them is that coal producers (like Australia) want to sell coal and employ coal miners, and those with coal burning power stations are reluctant to spend the money to build solar/nuclear/other power stations instead. But on the scale of climate change, those considerations aren't important.
Since it's not irrational to take into account what is objective fact (peak oil) and what is highly probable (global warming) the poster must have meant rational. What would be irrational would be to ignore these anthropogenic phenomena and their effect on our future.
Economic collapse, massive loss of arable land, an increase in infections + decrease in the quality of our diets (eg no seafood). Rampant inflation (since agricultural commodities will be difficult and transport nigh on impossible without oil, water and soil). The biggest extinction event ever will likely have massive psychological effects - which is in itself a health problem. But thanks for asking.
But to be more specific, we need a backup plan for Earth. The backup plan you are proposing is somewhat like taking a backup of a DVD by using a floppy disk - the 'backup' only captures a fraction of what needs to be captured, and even at the worst extant, the original is safer than the backup itself. Even if an asteroid crashes into the Earth, the latter will still be more livable than mars or the moon or a can in space. Even if it were morally acceptable to let billions of people die because we preferred to 'have a backup' rather than make the earth defensible from asteroids by detecting the asteroids and diverting them before they hit the earth. Thus saving the billions of lives you casually disregard.
Guess you didn't know, but when the pasty faced Europeans arrived in the americas, it was already successfully populated by other people. You must have been away when they covered that at school.
Try this one -- how about the first settlers in North America who came here during an ice age? Crossing the Bearing land bridge during an ice age must have been quite the high life for a bunch of people to whom animal skins were the cutting edge in protective garments.
But those people were following the game, and hunted and fished as they went along. Did you imagine they just woke up one day and said "say! let's trudge across the ice in that direction for months and months - for no reason?" Because that's not what happened.
Yes, going into space is different than anything we've done before. We're going where Mommy Nature hasn't already checked things out and made sure they're safe for us. Welcome to the adolescence of your species. I know it's tempting never to let go of mommy's hand, but eventually you really should. It's better
You chaps are good at putting forward false analogies aren't you? Pity you can't make a reasoned argument to support your position.
Ultimately it doesn't matter though. As others have pointed out, if you win and we sit huddled on this rock eventually an asteroid or comet will come along, pound us into extinction and give another species a chance.
I've already dealt fully with that one - go read the other posts.
Thanks for proving my point.
However, just implementing that kind of system wouldn't help with any other potential global catastrophes like a worldwide plague, or complete environmental collapse, or nuclear war. But hey, it's not like we're cynically condemning all the life on Earth by not trying to establish off-planet "backups".
If you are worried about plagues, let your kids play outside, contribute to medicines sans frontieres, and marry an asian person. Genetic diversity, combating poverty and third world disease, good health and immune systems are a killer for diseaes - literally. As for the other supposedly scary disasters, they aren't probable enough to scare me - if you are afraid, see a therapist or get a little squeeze ball, I'm sure it will help enormously. And learn the principles of risk management - that will help your distorted view of reality. And, and if we DID need an offsite backup the solution is easy - a big barrel of frozen embryos planted in space. When the earth recovers from disaster, the barrel automatically thaws and gestates the embryos, and releases them onto the earth. Bingo. We're back baby! None of the stupidity of trying to keep humans alive on an airless planet/puny space station for tens of thousands of years, whilst the earth recovers from disaster.
Apparently, the ones you've been licking were, anyway....
Good thing you weren't around when the first explorers from Europe found the Americas.
When the Europeans arrived in the Americas, it was already populated by humans living the high life. Are humans already in interstellar space or on mars, living the high life?
Or when some hominid was thinking about maybe seeing what was outside that big valley in Africa.
When the hominid left the valley, the world outside was already filled with other species living the high life - is interstellar space already filled with goodies for us to eat, and other species, living the life of luxury?
No?
Well gee. Looks like your silly analogy just rolled over and showed me it's oh! So yummy, soft, underbelly. Once again, when it was vital for you to present a reason for us to support a mars colony/space station/interstellar expedition of humans, you've failed to give us ANY reason, ANY reason at all why this proposal should get any focus.
But we can't either, since we, as much as hens, are completely reliant on nature for provisions. Witness our addiction to oil, as a good example.
You've got a really limited imagination, don't you?
There's nothing wrong with my imagination - it's just that I have thought through the practicalities/implications of what you are proposing, and you (as you have amply demonstrated), have not.
Do you really think that a mass space expansion is going to involve tiny little colonies on the scale of the current Space Station?
Since the parent was speaking of interstellar travel, and not extra orbital space stations, then yes, that is what we are speaking of - interstellar travel is 2 or three human lifetimes spent in the darkness of interstellar space, inside a capsule.
There are a lot of people right now who live their entire lives within one city on the ground - their lives wouldn't be much different if they were living in a Los Angeles metro area (+ surrounding farmland)-sized space station, and there's nothing that says you can't have regular shuttle flights between the Earth & other space-stations/colonies
Wellll yes there is, because, like the current space station, there is no reason for those proposed space stations to exist - owing to your admittance that there is no practical way to travel outside the solar system, and just as the general population is unmoved by the presence of an orbital space station, they are likely to become quickly bored with any extra orbital station or quasi colony. And begin to wonder why, given there is no practical reason for those stations to exist, we should be wasting our precious resources maintaining them.
Even if we never figure out how to leave the solar system, it's not in our (Earth-based biological life forms) best interests to sit around waiting for an asteroid or comet to wipe out all life on the planet.
It's not for you to dictate to us what is in our best interests and what is not. Wiping out 6 billion plus people, plus every other species in its entirety, but preserving the life of a few thousand humans is not a successful outcome. Particularly in comparison with a system that gives early detection of objects on a collision course and diverts the object away. Entirely possible, and with the advantage of being ethical and not monstrous in cynically condemning billions of people/species to death. And - it doesn't require the stupidity of having humans in space, where they don't belong.
There's a _lot_ of building material out there in the solar system, especially if you figure out how to use the material from the Oort Cloud (outside of the planetary part of the system, but still within gravitational area of the Sun). Once we have a solid presence in space, instead of having to use the Earth as a base, then there are all kinds of things that are possible.
All sorts of things are possible - it's possible to keep a bear alive in a cage for years, while your tap its bile to make medicine. Because it's possible to do so doesn't mean we should do it.