It also helps if you consider the order of things happening, either observed or deduced. If a phenomenon is observed after something, every time after something and never otherwise, it's probably causation.
The direction of the causation can sometimes be deduced reasonably too. It's rather logical to say that the Chicxulub meteor killed the dinosaurs, rather than the other way around! Even when we don't really have evidence from meteors causing extinction.
On a philosophical note, one is also presupposing that the State has the right to confiscate someone's wealth at time of death, a right which is highly debatable. If you believe, as many on the Left would, that wealth is an evil thing that is usually obtained through dishonest means, then inheritance tax is merely justice. If you believe, as most on the Right would, that wealth is the fruits of one's labor (or one's ancestors' labor) and one's heirs have a duty to maintain and grow that wealth, then inheritance tax is merely another form of confiscation.
See, you're free to do whatever you want with your wealth, even after death. You don't? Well, isn't that nice! Then I guess that wealth goes to someone, and it's not confiscation anymore! There's some kind of a tax on every other method of transferring wealth from one person to another.
How I see this right vs left argument: the Right thinks it's entirely justified that one can have a privileged life with no shortage on anything just because an ancestor of his happened to belong to nobility or start a nice business. On the Left it feels unjustified - everybody should have a fair chance of success, and wealth should be a reward for one's own labor, not somebody else's.
I'd be more than happy to suddenly become the owner of a retail store. Even if it wasn't a completely free lunch.
>> if you could only find a credible link about intelligence being hereditary
> Yes, this isn't immediately obvious so we need to raise a monkey and a baby human together and see which grows up to be smarter!
Rather than mimicking adults, the scientists found that young chimps are better at working things out for themselves than children, who will simply copy the actions of their elders.http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1327942004
Everything points to the fact that chimps are on par if not more intelligent, but humans have this vastly more powerful communication which allows us to build on other peoples' ideas far better than simply watching what they do and copying that.
Besides, my experience with mensa people is that high IQ has pretty much nothing to do with conventional wisdom, analytic thinking, scientific mind or other traits I actually value more.
That is true about the magnetic field weakening. Our magnetic field is going through something called reversal. Which over time the poles will swap, thus making the magnetic field weaker.
Having sat through a lecture about this just yesterday, let me add some info.
First, we don't know what's happening. Our magnetic field is in a constant state of change anyways, and is known to have gone down momentarily only to spring back up later without reversing. Sure, making it sound certain makes a better story!
Second, our magnetic field is not ideal or simple. While the majority of it manifests itself as a north-south dipole field (two opposing poles), there's a nonideal component with multiple weaker poles laid on top of it. The relative strength of it is about 20%, and strengthening. I asked about this, and it seems that even if our dipole field goes down to nothingness, it's perfectly possible that the same amount of energy goes into creating a nontrivial field. Maybe we'll simply see "northern" lights all around randomly for a change.
So much wrong there that I don't know where to start.
1) The magnetic field proposal is actually interesting. That might actually have an effect. But, a magnetic field does not stop light from passing, and that's how the vast majority of energy comes to Earth. Actual particles are affected by the magnetic field though. They get moved from their original trajectories to polar areas, causing northern lights there. As far as I know, this phenomenon is not strong enough to significantly warm up the polar regions, but hey, there might be an effect.
2) "The storm is growing in altitude," de Pater said. "This growth signals a temperature increase in that region", she said.
Right. Storms form better when there's more heat available, that's what we know from our Caribbean hurricanes too. But deducing *global* warming on Jupiter from the fact that there's a new storm forming, is very bad science and very uncertain indeed. Regional warming tells us nothing about global warming.
3) "It is not yet clear, though, if the evidence of a single year's change represents a trend."
Let me tell you what, no it doesn't. Not here on Earth, and not any more on Mars. Also, this article too is taking one isolated spot and saying it reflects a global change. Think of El Niño on Earth: that too makes some places warmer and some other places cooler than otherwise when it happens.
There are no recent same climate changes on different planets. There's no CO2 ice cap melting on Earth or Jupiter, there's no huge permanent storm system forming on Earth or Mars and there's no excess CO2 or CFC being pumped into atmosphere on Mars or Jupiter.
4) "the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent - 18 percent - than transport."
Transport too is only one single cause for our emissions. Besides, nobody really claimed that it would be the cars themselves that are the biggest culprit. And, CO2 is currently far more significant than methane, even when we've more than doubled the atmospheric methane too. So right you are, it's not only cars and not even only CO2 that we should cut down.
It is possible that the warmer temperatures on Earth are caused by cyclical natural phenomena. That said, we do not know of a cycle that would come near to explaining recent warming. And, because we know a method by which CO2 traps heat, we can be fairly certain that on top of any natural phenomena we have added an unnatural phenomenon. And according to our best science, that unnatural phenomenon is "very probably" what is causing the warming here.
CO2 is not the only thing that affects climate. And our climate is a chaotic system too: it is fundamentally capable of huge changes without apparent reason.
And one last thing. China is only producing less than two thirds as much CO2 as USA, despite their far bigger population. And while they certainly have the capacity to produce more CO2, it's actually up to human beings. My guess is that China will never actually match USA in the total amount of CO2 ever produced - it'll take a long while to catch up to the current emissions, and then a whole lot more to match the USA's excess this far. Every reduction counts, and everybody cutting emissions and being bound by the same limits is the only moral way. China did agree to the Kyoto protocol, and I think that means they've agreed to limit emissions when they come close to the western pollution some coming decade or century.
I don't want to get rich, I want to be happy. And I recommend such priorities for everyone else too.
For references: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf (IPCC summary) and wikipedia for "energy conservation" and "kyoto protocol"..
While I am concerned about the future of our planet and our species' place upon it, I am growing increasingly sceptical of the wild claims surrounding a looming global warming catastrophe.
Come on now, the claims aren't that wild at all. We'll warm the planet up to six degrees, and seeing the sea level rise up to about 80 meters. The Earth was even more different when dinosaurs roamed about, that's for sure. Definitely life itself will continue, but a sudden jump to the climate we had 600M years ago might kill most things before they get a chance to adapt. Luckily, as far as we know, we're not changing much more than CO2 levels, and while fish may die (due to the pH of sea water changing) and everything else have problems (because of local changes), life goes on.
It's not necessarily that we'd change the planet into something it's never been - but we're doing it very very fast.
I'd be a bit sceptical about us knowing the CO2 concentrations 600 million years back. The oldest ice core measurement we have is 800 000 years old and older data is even more indirect and uncertain. Then again, glaciers only started forming much after the age of dinosaurs, so we might very well expect our glaciers to melt if we go back to those CO2 levels.
I work with scientists myself, and I must say here is a consensus about the warming actually happening. It does good to reject the *panic* about it though, and I have absolutely never heard a scientist express an unreasonable claim that wouldn't be backed by the science. I think the wildest predictions come from the media and the public.
The shock, hostility and downright hatred you will come across will very quickly render claims of death threats highly believable. Is this guy a jerk? Maybe. Is his science on-par? I have no clue. But, there is no denying the fact that this has become such an emotionally charged issue that climatology is probably the hardest field to do real science in today.
I think the shock and hatred is very logical. After all, many of us are convinced that we're changing the world for the worse and are coming to demand action against it. Somebody who's still doubting the evidence we have is obviously either a devil trying to destroy Earth as we know it, or an ignorant bastard who can't be made to realize the facts (what we have for facts anyway).
The latter explanation is, I think, applicable to most of humanity. I for one certainly find it very frustrating that nothing still continues to be done about climate change and people still fail to understand it. I admit being angry at deniers. It's understandable, good and *essential* that the state of our only planet is an emotionally charged issue!
It doesn't help in the least that the deniers seem to be the same group who seem to think god takes care of us after all, and by the way the Bible says we're expected to mess with the nature as we like.
I guess I was like you when I was younger. Today, I don't want to do *any* tweaking at all, save maybe changing the KDE theme. And you know what? I wouldn't spend a day compiling X if I wasn't paid $100 for it. That's just not my idea of fun - I'll rather do something else with the little freetime I have. And, I don't know what I need! I'd much rather trust somebody else's choice about what I might need and it almost always really works. Cluttering is not a problem, I have an extra gigabyte to spare for things I don't need but just might later.
That said, I really dislike the dependency hell on some distros too. That's why I use slackware.. =).
Glaciation is a local phenomenon and glaciers often form best in the winter when there's little radiation for the CO2 to trap in the first place. And a glacier is reflecting most of the sunlight anyway, so that it can't be trapped by CO2 either! Surely, higher CO2 concentration can reflect long-wave radiation that's coming from somewhere else, like the borders of the glacier, so I'd suspect that a high CO2 concentration should speed up melting of the very rims of the glaciers and not really affect the more central portions of it. And the glaciers grow in the central portions.
Surely CO2 can have a positive impact on the mean temperature, even when sometimes temps go low at a time of high CO2 concentration. CO2 isn't the only factor, and it's not always the decisive factor, but then again - looking into our past is not really helping forecast our future, as never before (in the relatively well known history) has the CO2 concentration been close to what it is now and climbing up towards.
Maybe CO2 concentration has not always been decisive, but maybe it will now that we seem to at least double it compared to the previous maximum.
Without knowing why it's happening you don't know what to fix or if you even can fix it.
It's a great thing we've got scientists digging into the subject all the time. And by the way, we do know that radiation from the sun has been strengthening lately. It's been strong enough to explain about 7.5% of the warming we're seeing (with some possibility for error, but not enough to change the conclusion). That's strong enough to warm up Mars, but far too feeble to explain the warming of Earth.
Source: IPCC summary, the Radiative Forcing chart on page 4.
It turns out that cows produce many times more methane than humans do.
Does it now? Then please explain why the hell the amount of atmospheric methane has more than doubled after the industrial revolution? Damn cows! It's better we kill them all and go vegetarian!
One large volcanic eruption produces more CO2 than we would produce in a hundred years at our current rate of production.
We're currently emitting something like 26 gigatons of CO2 every year (that's 7.2 Gt of C), while Wikipedia speaks about 145-255 megatons of CO2 per year from volcanoes. The source for my other numbers is the IPCC summary.
That sounds like a positive feedback to me. Temperature affecting CO2 levels is not really that surprising, and does not mean that CO2 wouldn't be affecting temperature. I'd guess that upping either of them has a positive impact on the other.
Some people don't care that they are fat but they do care that cowards like you attack their obvious flaws just to make themselves feel better.
"Let's go wall climbing today! Ahh crap. Okay, forget that." -- I know I'd hate to be physically unable to climb. Dunno how it feels. Probably people simply convince themselves that things they can't do aren't fun.
Certainly not caring about being fat can be a great way to stay sane and enjoy one's life. But caring about something is the best way to change it. There's a balance for everyone.
And I actually think at least some of the "bigotry" towards fat people is meant to motivate, not just to be mean.
Let me point out that while cosmic rays might have a *small* part to play in cloud formation, the biggest player in cloud formation is the air humidity. Clouds form when relative humidity hits 100% and it cannot happen when humidity is low.
Nanoscale or even microscale probes would completely change the economics of space exploration. And they would avoid the very serious problem of atomic abrasion that occurs at and above 0.1c.
Please present your calculations on how big antennas these probes would need to communicate back any findings.
We pretty much already have the technological capability to get a small probe up to c/10. We have the knowlege and basic designs to do it... it is already "mere" enginering and $$$$ problem for us today. If we simply chose to allocate several gigabucks to do it, we could with absolute certainty get something up to c/10 within 10 to 20 years.
Please do speculate further. I do know that those kinds of speeds are achieved already in particle accelerators, but larger stuff? Heck, I don't know if it would be possible to keep a probe on a circular track with magnets for acceleration up to near those speeds. And apart from that kind of acceleration, you'd need to strap on all the energy on the probe itself. And in any case, the probe would need a similar amount of energy to *stop* at a system (that would need to be carried by the probe anyway).
Nuclear energy might do it if we would find a way to transform all of it to kinetic energy. AFAIK that's not possible. Please do tell if you know a way.
We cannot really telescopically see planets either. Possible lifeforms are probably not building planet-size artifacts that would be distinguishable from planets either (it would be hard to find enough materials, or a reason, to do so!). Telescopically detectable artifacts? Nah. The fact we don't see them doesn't mean anything. Come on, we can only slightly see the Mars rovers from Mars orbit.
What about communication then? Our first radio broadcasts are already many lightyears away. Let's assume 100 ly, and let's assume for the sake of argument that the transmission power was 1 gigawatt (it CERTAINLY was much less). So 100 ly away, how much is left of that transmission power? Approximately 8.9e-29 (0.00000000000000000000000000089) watts per square meter. Now I'm not an expert on this, but I understand that's vastly below the chances of our own biggest radio telescopes.
Earth receives quite a lot of energy from the sun too. The amount is in the vicinity of 1.8*10^17 watts or roughly 180000 terawatts. Because the Earth temperature is nearly constant, the Earth is radiating away a similar amount of energy. I fail to find a number for total human energy usage, but did find a report saying that it's "equivalent to 0.005% of the total energy
incident upon the earth's surface". That said, if all the energy all of the humanity employs was used to send a signal, we'd get to around 50 millionths of the total power the Earth is radiating out anyway. Now one could imagine ingenious ways to separate this information from all possible natural wavelengths, but that won't solve all the problems with the scales of things involved.
Self-replicating probes? Now, it might be feasible to enter a system, hunt down an asteroid (huge energies involved in orbital adjustments), take it apart, build another probe and go forth to another system. The problem is energy. Do the probes use solar sails? That's completely feasible but slow. Solar panels? Same thing. Chemical energy? Nope, not feasible for any reasonable speed, the amount of fuel needed would exceed 100% of the probe's mass many times. Nuclear fission? Many problems finding fuel and preparing it for actual usage. Fusion? Now we're speculating. I think there are enough problems that the first dozen probes of any civilization are doomed to fail before getting to replicate. And that somebody might not be so keen to send probes if he knew that the probe had no way whatsoever to communicate back it's findings (see above paragraphs).
That said, I'm convinced that the human population is completely unable to spot another intelligent life of roughly the same level, even if it was at Alpha Centauri.
Yes, some people don't know ritual significance. Not everyone is a Priest either.
I read a piece from the national leader of a charismatic sect. I read a book written by a bishop. Both circled around the significance of baptizing, calling it "significant" but not coming near to touch the question why. Does one go to heaven once baptized? Can one go to heaven without being baptized? What if that someone was an infant who could not have been baptized yet? The answer to these questions is never yes or no, it's always "undefined". And when it isn't undef, it's what comforts someone the most.
In a way I like it that way too. Man, it would be scary if priests claimed to know exactly what happens when. And, let's face it, our society is surviving partly because people simply don't know the existing loopholes and are living by their interpretation of "the rules", while no rules really exist.. But it does not satisfy the scientific mind the least bit.
Well the Big Bang theory is a pretty good way to describe how the universe was created. Personally I believe its pretty close to correct, though it might be a while before we get the whole quantum mechanics and string theory mess sorted through. But even the theory itself fails to properly explain what caused the Big Bang to begin with -- you know, its 'turtles all the way down'. For lack of a more scientific answer to that question, perhaps it was the hand of God.
Let's assume for a moment that a bang is what happens whenever matter becomes dense enough. Dense enough being so much that it only happens in BigBang-like conditions. We get a pulsating universe. OR, assume that matter simply slips through other matter when hot enough / fast enough, and our universe is pulsating like before, only now it doesn't stop to wait for a "bang"! We're inventing new laws of nature here, but it's still better than going for a God, because these guesses of ours allow us to keep other laws of nature we're convinced about (like the conservation of energy). A god, if omnipotent or world-creating, would need to break the conservation of energy. As you can see, I myself solve the problem of the beginning by guessing that there never was one:).
And sometimes a wild guess is enough to bring comfort to an otherwise troubled heart and mind. There are reasons why blind faith can be good that defy logic, because indeed mankind defies logic. It is our nature to challenge the status quo. That is a fact to be celebrated. If not for it, we'd likely still live up in the trees.
Very true. But sometimes the same superstitions can be dangerous. Religion has its virtues, but it needs to stay out of politics and other forums where decisions need to be based on facts.
If you mean to say that as a species, we fool around and do stupid things and this itself turns out to be good and valuable as our terrible mistakes become our best lessons in life, I kindof agree with you. Probably we will continue to fool around, destroy stuff and learn from it. But if I can change things the slightest, maybe the probable climate change will be a wee bit less disastrous than without that? I'm with the let's-minimize-the-fuckups crowd (Not that disastrous would be disastrous. Some people die, rest of them adjust, as it has always been. Business as normal.)
One possible reason for my dislike of religion seems to be that religious people seem to be slower to learn from their mistakes. "That tragedy was the will of God, let's try again." "Our holy reign is constantly threatened by pagan people (whom we fail to notice are just like us), and they need to be smited!" Religion helps people to be certain about things, while an intelligent man is full of doubt. (As an outsider, I can't really tell if USA is suffering from religion or egomaniacism, but they're definitely not learning from their past wars a lot.)
Aha! So you have a belief system after all!
If you define "belief system" so that it includes all l
Perhaps it is intellectual dishonesty to make the assumption that people are unable to define their belief nor formulate a logical argument for that belief? Bigotry is the intolerance of a group because the group's beliefs conflict with one's own belief system.
It is not an assumption, but rather something I've found out in every single discussion about religion I've had.
Define? Yeah, people can usually define their belief vaguely, but come on, those beliefs have holes in them. What's the nature of the Bible? What's the significance of baptizing? What is the significance of other rituals? The christians I've spoken with tend to answer that those things are significant, but they don't really know why (not in these words, though!). Or the answer is "because Bible says so", even when the Bible says other things they don't believe in.
Logical argument? Think evidence. Please provide a logical, waterproof argument on why it had to be the daddy of Jesus who created the world, and not Odin or Väinämöinen or Eru. And indeed, what makes you think the world actually came to be instead of simply having been here all the time? I'm sorry, I haven't heard one good, logical argument that would follow evidence. Not even from the creationist group.
Indeed, creationism as it is is no basis for spirituality. Even if they'd manage to prove that there is an intelligent designer (I don't think they will), there'd be no logical reason to assume he was the god of the Bible.
I like to think I'm intolerant towards the religion, not the group. Love the sinner, hate the sin =). I try not to have a belief system, and try to be most careful to succumb to real evidence whenever I meet it. I'd say I'm against all belief systems. If there's no evidence about something, why indeed "believe" something? One can guess, and should guess, but should know that it's a wild guess.
Oh well, you're probably right that I wouldn't accept someone else's ideas about what's "evidence" and what's not. Religious people really bring up evidence like "I've searched my feelings and I know it to be true". Now it's not that illogical to go by that, but I wouldn't trust my feelings. I know they have been mistaken before.
Ultimately, be it whatever evidence at all, I try to remain a wee bit uncertain about things. Newtonian gravity seems pretty damn well established for v << c, but I don't believe in it. Rather, guess that it's right, or am convinced that the next thing I'll experience will probably obey Newtonian gravity.
And no, I don't have to agree to your interpretation of that old cliché!:). It has its virtues though, letting people of "different strokes" live together in peace. Certainly there has to be one and only one Truth about things.
If you mean that there is only one capital-T Truth, then I agree, but many belief systems have as part of them the idea that it is impossible for humans to actually know the capital-T Truth completely, which is itself an aspect of truth that they capture, exemplifying what I was saying about how "right/wrong" is a limiting false dichotomy.
Yeah, I mean there is only one Truth. But I also mean that the nature of the said truth is not unlike our common truths that are bound by our understanding of logic. Saying that "sky is blue", while not the whole truth, has to either be true or untrue at a certain time in one location. No matter what, the sky cannot be both blue and unblue at the same time, same place. Certainly this is more difficult with morals - you could say that christianity forbids killing, and you can say it allows it, both claims being not clearly untrue. Such might be a useful policy, but the Truth, as a system of this universe, must either allow beings to kill other beings or not.
I also think that the Truth *can* be found and understood. Every single part of it. One can't ever be certain about achieving that, though, even while evidence toward some truth might be overwhelming. It is not the nature of truths to be unintelligible!
Which is what I would call Agnosticism, as Atheism seems to be the rejection of God and spiritual beliefs, as in I know there isn't one, as opposed to I don't know.
I think I'm an atheist because I actively reject all things that don't seem to be supported by evidence. I am *convinced* that there isn't a god. But I certainly can't prove that, and I must admit that a god is indeed possible. You could say it's a play with words, but personally I think agnosticists are funny to discredit evidence and actively think that there might be a god!
The word translated as "day" also means "age" in Hebrew, assume some artistic license, aka metaphor, in describing in just a few paragraphs the act of creation of the universe which is what any physicist would do describing the Big Bang to a modern high-school educated audience much less peasants thousands of years ago, and bam you're done.
The Genesis describes things being created in a funny sequence. First the Earth and only then create the stars, man before the animals (in the second account of things that also disagrees with the first one, on the second page!) et cetera. It's unrelated to the creation happening in seven days or seven ages. Now I think we agree that said text shouldn't be taken literally, but I'm left wondering how else can a text reliably carry information. What is the value of Genesis, if it got all the facts wrong? Isn't it weird to value a writing that is clearly wrong on all aspects that we can actually test?
Bible certainly speaks a lot in metaphors. Personally I think that the Mediterranean 2000 years ago was so vastly different culturally that we can't have much chance of understanding biblical metaphors the same way the writers did. That in addition to all the translation problems.
I think the comparison between the Bible and the Lord of the Rings is somewhat justified too =). With all the weird metaphors and other difficulties, indeed having to choose which parts to take literally and which not to, I'm happy I've found a book that can be taken literally, speaks clearly, makes sense and is all so relevant. That book is "Ancient Wisdom, Modern World - ethics for the new millennium" by the current Dalai Lama. Why should an older book be any better than a new one? Actually it's really very logical that new books are better.
Why is it that you acknowledge that different christians share differing beliefs, yet go on to characterize all christians as being narrow minded, anti-liberal twats? Who here is being intellectually dishonest?
I apologise, should have been more careful with that. Anyway, for what I know, religion and conservatism seem to go hand-in-hand. At least where I live, and most of the time. Sure there are exceptions, and I'm expecting that to be the case:).
I'm also a victim of the phenomenon that not knowing what christianity is, I DO get ideas from people who are actively advertising their state of being christians. My (unavoidable?) bad.
Yeah, and each of them is either right or wrong. Whenever two beliefs disagree, only one of them can be right. There are thousands of different beliefs, so a person claiming he has the correct one without giving sufficient evidence for it sure sounds quite ignorant.
Reading this you might think you "don't have all the answers". That's something I hear often from religious people. However, it seems clear to me that none of us have any answers, so pretending to have even some, while not completely understanding them, is also "intellectual dishonesty". This is why I like atheism (which, as christianity, means slightly different things to different people). To me it means that we sincerely don't have any answers at all, and all that we have are guesses. Some guesses are better than others, and which they are can be told apart by the evidence.
Last but not least, there is a huge contradiction in believing in what the Bible says and the big bang and evolution. These things are in complete disagreement. Now I've been told that christians think the Bible has more value than the other religions' books, which is weird considering the above. If I see ten errors on the first page of a book, I tend not to trust the book a whole lot.
whooaa.. First and foremost, the GP was not attacking your person. He was merely showing the error of your ways.
Who then should dictate what christianity should or should be? The least common denominator seems to be "Jesus was a son of a god", which I find a bit unsatisfying. Different christians have given me very different answers, and I'm left wondering if anything "christian" exists, or if it's simply a word used to mean the people who believe the above clause about Jesus.
There's no reason to disbelieve that Jesus existed, gave some good teachings, and was crucified. That itself is no basis for any spirituality. Several other people exist and give good teachings. Love is great, and the same teaching of Love is found in all religions that survive today. Your belief that J is divine is what I find weird and call "intellectual dishonesty" (unless you can present your evidence for the fact to others).
And.. I can't resist.. Why is it that Jesus was a radical peace-loving liberal, but today christians are the ones who seem to hate the radical peace-loving liberals of our time?
Please, try to find your own path, and only follow Christ when it agrees with your own morals. I personally think J. Christ was a bit rude several times. For example at the pool where he cured one man but left all of the others to suffer while he could have helped them too.
Slashdot Mirror
It also helps if you consider the order of things happening, either observed or deduced. If a phenomenon is observed after something, every time after something and never otherwise, it's probably causation.
The direction of the causation can sometimes be deduced reasonably too. It's rather logical to say that the Chicxulub meteor killed the dinosaurs, rather than the other way around! Even when we don't really have evidence from meteors causing extinction.
On a philosophical note, one is also presupposing that the State has the right to confiscate someone's wealth at time of death, a right which is highly debatable. If you believe, as many on the Left would, that wealth is an evil thing that is usually obtained through dishonest means, then inheritance tax is merely justice. If you believe, as most on the Right would, that wealth is the fruits of one's labor (or one's ancestors' labor) and one's heirs have a duty to maintain and grow that wealth, then inheritance tax is merely another form of confiscation.
See, you're free to do whatever you want with your wealth, even after death. You don't? Well, isn't that nice! Then I guess that wealth goes to someone, and it's not confiscation anymore! There's some kind of a tax on every other method of transferring wealth from one person to another.
How I see this right vs left argument: the Right thinks it's entirely justified that one can have a privileged life with no shortage on anything just because an ancestor of his happened to belong to nobility or start a nice business. On the Left it feels unjustified - everybody should have a fair chance of success, and wealth should be a reward for one's own labor, not somebody else's.
I'd be more than happy to suddenly become the owner of a retail store. Even if it wasn't a completely free lunch.
>> if you could only find a credible link about intelligence being hereditary
> Yes, this isn't immediately obvious so we need to raise a monkey and a baby human together and see which grows up to be smarter!
Rather than mimicking adults, the scientists found that young chimps are better at working things out for themselves than children, who will simply copy the actions of their elders. http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1327942004
Everything points to the fact that chimps are on par if not more intelligent, but humans have this vastly more powerful communication which allows us to build on other peoples' ideas far better than simply watching what they do and copying that.
Besides, my experience with mensa people is that high IQ has pretty much nothing to do with conventional wisdom, analytic thinking, scientific mind or other traits I actually value more.
That is true about the magnetic field weakening. Our magnetic field is going through something called reversal. Which over time the poles will swap, thus making the magnetic field weaker.
Having sat through a lecture about this just yesterday, let me add some info.
First, we don't know what's happening. Our magnetic field is in a constant state of change anyways, and is known to have gone down momentarily only to spring back up later without reversing. Sure, making it sound certain makes a better story!
Second, our magnetic field is not ideal or simple. While the majority of it manifests itself as a north-south dipole field (two opposing poles), there's a nonideal component with multiple weaker poles laid on top of it. The relative strength of it is about 20%, and strengthening. I asked about this, and it seems that even if our dipole field goes down to nothingness, it's perfectly possible that the same amount of energy goes into creating a nontrivial field. Maybe we'll simply see "northern" lights all around randomly for a change.
So much wrong there that I don't know where to start.
1) The magnetic field proposal is actually interesting. That might actually have an effect. But, a magnetic field does not stop light from passing, and that's how the vast majority of energy comes to Earth. Actual particles are affected by the magnetic field though. They get moved from their original trajectories to polar areas, causing northern lights there. As far as I know, this phenomenon is not strong enough to significantly warm up the polar regions, but hey, there might be an effect.
2) "The storm is growing in altitude," de Pater said. "This growth signals a temperature increase in that region", she said.
Right. Storms form better when there's more heat available, that's what we know from our Caribbean hurricanes too. But deducing *global* warming on Jupiter from the fact that there's a new storm forming, is very bad science and very uncertain indeed. Regional warming tells us nothing about global warming.
3) "It is not yet clear, though, if the evidence of a single year's change represents a trend."
Let me tell you what, no it doesn't. Not here on Earth, and not any more on Mars. Also, this article too is taking one isolated spot and saying it reflects a global change. Think of El Niño on Earth: that too makes some places warmer and some other places cooler than otherwise when it happens.
There are no recent same climate changes on different planets. There's no CO2 ice cap melting on Earth or Jupiter, there's no huge permanent storm system forming on Earth or Mars and there's no excess CO2 or CFC being pumped into atmosphere on Mars or Jupiter.
4) "the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent - 18 percent - than transport."
Transport too is only one single cause for our emissions. Besides, nobody really claimed that it would be the cars themselves that are the biggest culprit. And, CO2 is currently far more significant than methane, even when we've more than doubled the atmospheric methane too. So right you are, it's not only cars and not even only CO2 that we should cut down.
It is possible that the warmer temperatures on Earth are caused by cyclical natural phenomena. That said, we do not know of a cycle that would come near to explaining recent warming. And, because we know a method by which CO2 traps heat, we can be fairly certain that on top of any natural phenomena we have added an unnatural phenomenon. And according to our best science, that unnatural phenomenon is "very probably" what is causing the warming here.
CO2 is not the only thing that affects climate. And our climate is a chaotic system too: it is fundamentally capable of huge changes without apparent reason.
And one last thing. China is only producing less than two thirds as much CO2 as USA, despite their far bigger population. And while they certainly have the capacity to produce more CO2, it's actually up to human beings. My guess is that China will never actually match USA in the total amount of CO2 ever produced - it'll take a long while to catch up to the current emissions, and then a whole lot more to match the USA's excess this far. Every reduction counts, and everybody cutting emissions and being bound by the same limits is the only moral way. China did agree to the Kyoto protocol, and I think that means they've agreed to limit emissions when they come close to the western pollution some coming decade or century.
I don't want to get rich, I want to be happy. And I recommend such priorities for everyone else too.
For references: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf (IPCC summary) and wikipedia for "energy conservation" and "kyoto protocol"..
I have a better idea, let's send you and George Bush, then the bs and the danger to humans on this planet will both go down.
Wow, just think of the amount of bullshit! That'll easily fertilize the whole planet and create an atmosphere while decomposing :). Profit!!
See, now I'm the opposite. I'm nearing 50 and I find tweaking and tinkering with software much more interesting than planting petunias.
All right! I guess that's when you have time for that again :). I'm 25 now, too terribly busy with studies, girls, sports..
While I am concerned about the future of our planet and our species' place upon it, I am growing increasingly sceptical of the wild claims surrounding a looming global warming catastrophe.
Come on now, the claims aren't that wild at all. We'll warm the planet up to six degrees, and seeing the sea level rise up to about 80 meters. The Earth was even more different when dinosaurs roamed about, that's for sure. Definitely life itself will continue, but a sudden jump to the climate we had 600M years ago might kill most things before they get a chance to adapt. Luckily, as far as we know, we're not changing much more than CO2 levels, and while fish may die (due to the pH of sea water changing) and everything else have problems (because of local changes), life goes on.
It's not necessarily that we'd change the planet into something it's never been - but we're doing it very very fast.
I'd be a bit sceptical about us knowing the CO2 concentrations 600 million years back. The oldest ice core measurement we have is 800 000 years old and older data is even more indirect and uncertain. Then again, glaciers only started forming much after the age of dinosaurs, so we might very well expect our glaciers to melt if we go back to those CO2 levels.
I work with scientists myself, and I must say here is a consensus about the warming actually happening. It does good to reject the *panic* about it though, and I have absolutely never heard a scientist express an unreasonable claim that wouldn't be backed by the science. I think the wildest predictions come from the media and the public.
The shock, hostility and downright hatred you will come across will very quickly render claims of death threats highly believable. Is this guy a jerk? Maybe. Is his science on-par? I have no clue. But, there is no denying the fact that this has become such an emotionally charged issue that climatology is probably the hardest field to do real science in today.
I think the shock and hatred is very logical. After all, many of us are convinced that we're changing the world for the worse and are coming to demand action against it. Somebody who's still doubting the evidence we have is obviously either a devil trying to destroy Earth as we know it, or an ignorant bastard who can't be made to realize the facts (what we have for facts anyway).
The latter explanation is, I think, applicable to most of humanity. I for one certainly find it very frustrating that nothing still continues to be done about climate change and people still fail to understand it. I admit being angry at deniers. It's understandable, good and *essential* that the state of our only planet is an emotionally charged issue!
It doesn't help in the least that the deniers seem to be the same group who seem to think god takes care of us after all, and by the way the Bible says we're expected to mess with the nature as we like.
I guess I was like you when I was younger. Today, I don't want to do *any* tweaking at all, save maybe changing the KDE theme. And you know what? I wouldn't spend a day compiling X if I wasn't paid $100 for it. That's just not my idea of fun - I'll rather do something else with the little freetime I have. And, I don't know what I need! I'd much rather trust somebody else's choice about what I might need and it almost always really works. Cluttering is not a problem, I have an extra gigabyte to spare for things I don't need but just might later.
That said, I really dislike the dependency hell on some distros too. That's why I use slackware.. =).
Glaciation is a local phenomenon and glaciers often form best in the winter when there's little radiation for the CO2 to trap in the first place. And a glacier is reflecting most of the sunlight anyway, so that it can't be trapped by CO2 either! Surely, higher CO2 concentration can reflect long-wave radiation that's coming from somewhere else, like the borders of the glacier, so I'd suspect that a high CO2 concentration should speed up melting of the very rims of the glaciers and not really affect the more central portions of it. And the glaciers grow in the central portions.
Surely CO2 can have a positive impact on the mean temperature, even when sometimes temps go low at a time of high CO2 concentration. CO2 isn't the only factor, and it's not always the decisive factor, but then again - looking into our past is not really helping forecast our future, as never before (in the relatively well known history) has the CO2 concentration been close to what it is now and climbing up towards.
Maybe CO2 concentration has not always been decisive, but maybe it will now that we seem to at least double it compared to the previous maximum.
Without knowing why it's happening you don't know what to fix or if you even can fix it.
It's a great thing we've got scientists digging into the subject all the time. And by the way, we do know that radiation from the sun has been strengthening lately. It's been strong enough to explain about 7.5% of the warming we're seeing (with some possibility for error, but not enough to change the conclusion). That's strong enough to warm up Mars, but far too feeble to explain the warming of Earth.
Source: IPCC summary, the Radiative Forcing chart on page 4.
It turns out that cows produce many times more methane than humans do.
Does it now? Then please explain why the hell the amount of atmospheric methane has more than doubled after the industrial revolution? Damn cows! It's better we kill them all and go vegetarian!
One large volcanic eruption produces more CO2 than we would produce in a hundred years at our current rate of production.
We're currently emitting something like 26 gigatons of CO2 every year (that's 7.2 Gt of C), while Wikipedia speaks about 145-255 megatons of CO2 per year from volcanoes. The source for my other numbers is the IPCC summary.
That sounds like a positive feedback to me. Temperature affecting CO2 levels is not really that surprising, and does not mean that CO2 wouldn't be affecting temperature. I'd guess that upping either of them has a positive impact on the other.
Some people don't care that they are fat but they do care that cowards like you attack their obvious flaws just to make themselves feel better.
"Let's go wall climbing today! Ahh crap. Okay, forget that." -- I know I'd hate to be physically unable to climb. Dunno how it feels. Probably people simply convince themselves that things they can't do aren't fun.
Certainly not caring about being fat can be a great way to stay sane and enjoy one's life. But caring about something is the best way to change it. There's a balance for everyone.
And I actually think at least some of the "bigotry" towards fat people is meant to motivate, not just to be mean.
Let me point out that while cosmic rays might have a *small* part to play in cloud formation, the biggest player in cloud formation is the air humidity. Clouds form when relative humidity hits 100% and it cannot happen when humidity is low.
Please present your calculations on how big antennas these probes would need to communicate back any findings.
We pretty much already have the technological capability to get a small probe up to c/10. We have the knowlege and basic designs to do it... it is already "mere" enginering and $$$$ problem for us today. If we simply chose to allocate several gigabucks to do it, we could with absolute certainty get something up to c/10 within 10 to 20 years.
Please do speculate further. I do know that those kinds of speeds are achieved already in particle accelerators, but larger stuff? Heck, I don't know if it would be possible to keep a probe on a circular track with magnets for acceleration up to near those speeds. And apart from that kind of acceleration, you'd need to strap on all the energy on the probe itself. And in any case, the probe would need a similar amount of energy to *stop* at a system (that would need to be carried by the probe anyway).
Nuclear energy might do it if we would find a way to transform all of it to kinetic energy. AFAIK that's not possible. Please do tell if you know a way.
We cannot really telescopically see planets either. Possible lifeforms are probably not building planet-size artifacts that would be distinguishable from planets either (it would be hard to find enough materials, or a reason, to do so!). Telescopically detectable artifacts? Nah. The fact we don't see them doesn't mean anything. Come on, we can only slightly see the Mars rovers from Mars orbit.
What about communication then? Our first radio broadcasts are already many lightyears away. Let's assume 100 ly, and let's assume for the sake of argument that the transmission power was 1 gigawatt (it CERTAINLY was much less). So 100 ly away, how much is left of that transmission power? Approximately 8.9e-29 (0.00000000000000000000000000089) watts per square meter. Now I'm not an expert on this, but I understand that's vastly below the chances of our own biggest radio telescopes.
Earth receives quite a lot of energy from the sun too. The amount is in the vicinity of 1.8*10^17 watts or roughly 180000 terawatts. Because the Earth temperature is nearly constant, the Earth is radiating away a similar amount of energy. I fail to find a number for total human energy usage, but did find a report saying that it's "equivalent to 0.005% of the total energy incident upon the earth's surface". That said, if all the energy all of the humanity employs was used to send a signal, we'd get to around 50 millionths of the total power the Earth is radiating out anyway. Now one could imagine ingenious ways to separate this information from all possible natural wavelengths, but that won't solve all the problems with the scales of things involved.
Self-replicating probes? Now, it might be feasible to enter a system, hunt down an asteroid (huge energies involved in orbital adjustments), take it apart, build another probe and go forth to another system. The problem is energy. Do the probes use solar sails? That's completely feasible but slow. Solar panels? Same thing. Chemical energy? Nope, not feasible for any reasonable speed, the amount of fuel needed would exceed 100% of the probe's mass many times. Nuclear fission? Many problems finding fuel and preparing it for actual usage. Fusion? Now we're speculating. I think there are enough problems that the first dozen probes of any civilization are doomed to fail before getting to replicate. And that somebody might not be so keen to send probes if he knew that the probe had no way whatsoever to communicate back it's findings (see above paragraphs).
That said, I'm convinced that the human population is completely unable to spot another intelligent life of roughly the same level, even if it was at Alpha Centauri.
Yes, some people don't know ritual significance. Not everyone is a Priest either.
I read a piece from the national leader of a charismatic sect. I read a book written by a bishop. Both circled around the significance of baptizing, calling it "significant" but not coming near to touch the question why. Does one go to heaven once baptized? Can one go to heaven without being baptized? What if that someone was an infant who could not have been baptized yet? The answer to these questions is never yes or no, it's always "undefined". And when it isn't undef, it's what comforts someone the most.
In a way I like it that way too. Man, it would be scary if priests claimed to know exactly what happens when. And, let's face it, our society is surviving partly because people simply don't know the existing loopholes and are living by their interpretation of "the rules", while no rules really exist.. But it does not satisfy the scientific mind the least bit.
Well the Big Bang theory is a pretty good way to describe how the universe was created. Personally I believe its pretty close to correct, though it might be a while before we get the whole quantum mechanics and string theory mess sorted through. But even the theory itself fails to properly explain what caused the Big Bang to begin with -- you know, its 'turtles all the way down'. For lack of a more scientific answer to that question, perhaps it was the hand of God.
Let's assume for a moment that a bang is what happens whenever matter becomes dense enough. Dense enough being so much that it only happens in BigBang-like conditions. We get a pulsating universe. OR, assume that matter simply slips through other matter when hot enough / fast enough, and our universe is pulsating like before, only now it doesn't stop to wait for a "bang"! We're inventing new laws of nature here, but it's still better than going for a God, because these guesses of ours allow us to keep other laws of nature we're convinced about (like the conservation of energy). A god, if omnipotent or world-creating, would need to break the conservation of energy. As you can see, I myself solve the problem of the beginning by guessing that there never was one :).
And sometimes a wild guess is enough to bring comfort to an otherwise troubled heart and mind. There are reasons why blind faith can be good that defy logic, because indeed mankind defies logic. It is our nature to challenge the status quo. That is a fact to be celebrated. If not for it, we'd likely still live up in the trees.
Very true. But sometimes the same superstitions can be dangerous. Religion has its virtues, but it needs to stay out of politics and other forums where decisions need to be based on facts.
If you mean to say that as a species, we fool around and do stupid things and this itself turns out to be good and valuable as our terrible mistakes become our best lessons in life, I kindof agree with you. Probably we will continue to fool around, destroy stuff and learn from it. But if I can change things the slightest, maybe the probable climate change will be a wee bit less disastrous than without that? I'm with the let's-minimize-the-fuckups crowd (Not that disastrous would be disastrous. Some people die, rest of them adjust, as it has always been. Business as normal.)
One possible reason for my dislike of religion seems to be that religious people seem to be slower to learn from their mistakes. "That tragedy was the will of God, let's try again." "Our holy reign is constantly threatened by pagan people (whom we fail to notice are just like us), and they need to be smited!" Religion helps people to be certain about things, while an intelligent man is full of doubt. (As an outsider, I can't really tell if USA is suffering from religion or egomaniacism, but they're definitely not learning from their past wars a lot.)
Aha! So you have a belief system after all!
If you define "belief system" so that it includes all l
Perhaps it is intellectual dishonesty to make the assumption that people are unable to define their belief nor formulate a logical argument for that belief? Bigotry is the intolerance of a group because the group's beliefs conflict with one's own belief system.
It is not an assumption, but rather something I've found out in every single discussion about religion I've had.
Define? Yeah, people can usually define their belief vaguely, but come on, those beliefs have holes in them. What's the nature of the Bible? What's the significance of baptizing? What is the significance of other rituals? The christians I've spoken with tend to answer that those things are significant, but they don't really know why (not in these words, though!). Or the answer is "because Bible says so", even when the Bible says other things they don't believe in.
Logical argument? Think evidence. Please provide a logical, waterproof argument on why it had to be the daddy of Jesus who created the world, and not Odin or Väinämöinen or Eru. And indeed, what makes you think the world actually came to be instead of simply having been here all the time? I'm sorry, I haven't heard one good, logical argument that would follow evidence. Not even from the creationist group.
Indeed, creationism as it is is no basis for spirituality. Even if they'd manage to prove that there is an intelligent designer (I don't think they will), there'd be no logical reason to assume he was the god of the Bible.
I like to think I'm intolerant towards the religion, not the group. Love the sinner, hate the sin =). I try not to have a belief system, and try to be most careful to succumb to real evidence whenever I meet it. I'd say I'm against all belief systems. If there's no evidence about something, why indeed "believe" something? One can guess, and should guess, but should know that it's a wild guess.
Oh well, you're probably right that I wouldn't accept someone else's ideas about what's "evidence" and what's not. Religious people really bring up evidence like "I've searched my feelings and I know it to be true". Now it's not that illogical to go by that, but I wouldn't trust my feelings. I know they have been mistaken before.
Ultimately, be it whatever evidence at all, I try to remain a wee bit uncertain about things. Newtonian gravity seems pretty damn well established for v << c, but I don't believe in it. Rather, guess that it's right, or am convinced that the next thing I'll experience will probably obey Newtonian gravity.
And no, I don't have to agree to your interpretation of that old cliché! :). It has its virtues though, letting people of "different strokes" live together in peace. Certainly there has to be one and only one Truth about things.
If you mean that there is only one capital-T Truth, then I agree, but many belief systems have as part of them the idea that it is impossible for humans to actually know the capital-T Truth completely, which is itself an aspect of truth that they capture, exemplifying what I was saying about how "right/wrong" is a limiting false dichotomy.
Yeah, I mean there is only one Truth. But I also mean that the nature of the said truth is not unlike our common truths that are bound by our understanding of logic. Saying that "sky is blue", while not the whole truth, has to either be true or untrue at a certain time in one location. No matter what, the sky cannot be both blue and unblue at the same time, same place. Certainly this is more difficult with morals - you could say that christianity forbids killing, and you can say it allows it, both claims being not clearly untrue. Such might be a useful policy, but the Truth, as a system of this universe, must either allow beings to kill other beings or not.
I also think that the Truth *can* be found and understood. Every single part of it. One can't ever be certain about achieving that, though, even while evidence toward some truth might be overwhelming. It is not the nature of truths to be unintelligible!
Which is what I would call Agnosticism, as Atheism seems to be the rejection of God and spiritual beliefs, as in I know there isn't one, as opposed to I don't know.
I think I'm an atheist because I actively reject all things that don't seem to be supported by evidence. I am *convinced* that there isn't a god. But I certainly can't prove that, and I must admit that a god is indeed possible. You could say it's a play with words, but personally I think agnosticists are funny to discredit evidence and actively think that there might be a god!
The word translated as "day" also means "age" in Hebrew, assume some artistic license, aka metaphor, in describing in just a few paragraphs the act of creation of the universe which is what any physicist would do describing the Big Bang to a modern high-school educated audience much less peasants thousands of years ago, and bam you're done.
The Genesis describes things being created in a funny sequence. First the Earth and only then create the stars, man before the animals (in the second account of things that also disagrees with the first one, on the second page!) et cetera. It's unrelated to the creation happening in seven days or seven ages. Now I think we agree that said text shouldn't be taken literally, but I'm left wondering how else can a text reliably carry information. What is the value of Genesis, if it got all the facts wrong? Isn't it weird to value a writing that is clearly wrong on all aspects that we can actually test?
Bible certainly speaks a lot in metaphors. Personally I think that the Mediterranean 2000 years ago was so vastly different culturally that we can't have much chance of understanding biblical metaphors the same way the writers did. That in addition to all the translation problems.
I think the comparison between the Bible and the Lord of the Rings is somewhat justified too =). With all the weird metaphors and other difficulties, indeed having to choose which parts to take literally and which not to, I'm happy I've found a book that can be taken literally, speaks clearly, makes sense and is all so relevant. That book is "Ancient Wisdom, Modern World - ethics for the new millennium" by the current Dalai Lama. Why should an older book be any better than a new one? Actually it's really very logical that new books are better.
Why is it that you acknowledge that different christians share differing beliefs, yet go on to characterize all christians as being narrow minded, anti-liberal twats? Who here is being intellectually dishonest?
I apologise, should have been more careful with that. Anyway, for what I know, religion and conservatism seem to go hand-in-hand. At least where I live, and most of the time. Sure there are exceptions, and I'm expecting that to be the case :).
I'm also a victim of the phenomenon that not knowing what christianity is, I DO get ideas from people who are actively advertising their state of being christians. My (unavoidable?) bad.
there are thousands of different beliefs.
Yeah, and each of them is either right or wrong. Whenever two beliefs disagree, only one of them can be right. There are thousands of different beliefs, so a person claiming he has the correct one without giving sufficient evidence for it sure sounds quite ignorant.
Reading this you might think you "don't have all the answers". That's something I hear often from religious people. However, it seems clear to me that none of us have any answers, so pretending to have even some, while not completely understanding them, is also "intellectual dishonesty". This is why I like atheism (which, as christianity, means slightly different things to different people). To me it means that we sincerely don't have any answers at all, and all that we have are guesses. Some guesses are better than others, and which they are can be told apart by the evidence.
Last but not least, there is a huge contradiction in believing in what the Bible says and the big bang and evolution. These things are in complete disagreement. Now I've been told that christians think the Bible has more value than the other religions' books, which is weird considering the above. If I see ten errors on the first page of a book, I tend not to trust the book a whole lot.
whooaa.. First and foremost, the GP was not attacking your person. He was merely showing the error of your ways.
Who then should dictate what christianity should or should be? The least common denominator seems to be "Jesus was a son of a god", which I find a bit unsatisfying. Different christians have given me very different answers, and I'm left wondering if anything "christian" exists, or if it's simply a word used to mean the people who believe the above clause about Jesus.
There's no reason to disbelieve that Jesus existed, gave some good teachings, and was crucified. That itself is no basis for any spirituality. Several other people exist and give good teachings. Love is great, and the same teaching of Love is found in all religions that survive today. Your belief that J is divine is what I find weird and call "intellectual dishonesty" (unless you can present your evidence for the fact to others).
And.. I can't resist.. Why is it that Jesus was a radical peace-loving liberal, but today christians are the ones who seem to hate the radical peace-loving liberals of our time?
Please, try to find your own path, and only follow Christ when it agrees with your own morals. I personally think J. Christ was a bit rude several times. For example at the pool where he cured one man but left all of the others to suffer while he could have helped them too.