Pay no attention to the Koch behind the curtain...
At least the Koch brothers aren't former unapologetic Nazi collaborators and haven't played a key role in 6 past and ongoing international financial/currency collapses and 8 regime collapses like the Liberal/Progressive Democrat contributor George Soros who funds and/or controls dozens of groups on the left.
This Koch brothers hysteria is nothing but those on the left attempting to find someone...anyone...on the right that's anywhere near the "rich evil genius" equal of the left's George Soros. In terms of harm done and general evilness, Soros makes Bernie Madoff look like a piker. The Koch brothers don't even show up on the radar at Soros' level of evil.
These are accdents all launch related accidents, and the list is not complete.
I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse or trolling at this point.
Do you honestly not get that the ship is never launched from Earth? That it would be built in space?
You wouldn't even fuel the thing until you had it parked way out at a La Grange point ready for departure. The fuel would be sent in small quantities, a little at a time. Heck, the fuel may not even come from Earth at all. It might come from a lunar mining operation along with many of the raw materials for the structural components.
The electronics may be the only parts to climb the gravity well up from Earth. Depending on how far in the future this starship project would occur, even that may not be necessary. It may quite well be the case that the first starship may for all intents and purposes be entirely the product of materials and resources gathered from places other than Earth. Even if the first ship isn't built almost entirely from off-Earth materials, it's certain that if following ships are built, at some point that will become true.
There's really no reason why such a ship would ever come any closer to the Earth than lunar orbit or parked at a La Grange point.
You're in far, far, far more danger from existing terrestrial reactors than you would be from any nuclear accident regarding the fueling/operations of a nuclear-powered starship that may never come close enough to see from Earth without very sophisticated optics.
The less government involvement there is in business, the less business will want/need to be involved in government.
Simple logic, really.
For some reason, there are many who only complain about the corporate side of this without realizing the cause - which is the government's involvement in the first place (or the government's ability to be involved).
Limited government is a good thing. You don't get to require unending government involvement without paying the price of corruption. Never has happened in history, never will.
The irony of Larry Lessig voting for big government while decrying corruption is delicious - decrying the effects while supporting the cause is just craziness.
This!
People want it all without any of the consequences. They want all the benefits and lack of personal responsibility, and all the creature comforts of an entitlement society, but ignore and deny the corruption and losses of individual freedoms such a system in, and/or blame the negative consequences on those who oppose the expansion of the government's reach and power and on "the rich".
The authors of the Constitution understood that the only way to prevent unbearable levels of government corruption is to prevent government from becoming large and powerful enough to be a tempting target for bribery/influence.
I'm talking about accidents, obviously. Space rockets are more fragile and less reliable than our usual nuclear power plants. That's what I'm talking about. Assembling the thing in the orbit doesn't really change the fact that space rockets are prone to fail.
What kind of "accidents" do you mean here? We're talking about an interstellar spaceship that stays in space and doesn't ever land. If you're worried about a meltdown or explosion in space, then I hate to break it to you, but there are a whole lot of extremely dangerous, deadly-radiation-emitting, and lethal things in space. One of the most dangerous is a titanic ongoing thermonuclear reaction millions of times the size of Earth only about 93 million miles away, which is practically in our laps.
Assuming the ship is finished and fueled at the closest Earth-Moon La Grange point (L2), that still puts the starship just 37,000 miles closer to the Earth than the moon. All the other La Grange points are either the same distance as the moon or further away from Earth. You could set off every nuclear/thermonuclear weapon that's ever existed on the planet up to this time at once at that distance and you'd never know it, unless you happened to be looking at that point at the right moment.
I just don't get the fear. It seems purely emotional and not based on logic at all.
This thing would be assembled in orbit and would never land on a planet.
How would you send the radioactive fuel to orbit? By FedEx?
[sarc] Well, obviously, the fuel will be sent up in one huge and extremely dangerous near-critical-mass lump to maximize the possible danger rather than some other boring way, like over time in small quantities on multiple.Earth-to-LEO launches. [/sarc]
C'mon, dude! Seriously!?!?
I know this is rocket science and nuclear science, but this is Slashdot!
Please turn in your geek card at the door on your way out for not being able to figure out that you don't send all the fissionable material into orbit on one launch vehicle!
If not, why not use a nuclear engine to get off the surface?
Short answer: Shit happens.
Longer answer:
Why tempt Murphy's Law and/or an unlucky turn of the odds? Seems to me to just be smart risk management if you choose NOT to have critical fission piles screaming through the atmosphere of an inhabited planet at thousands of miles per hour if it's not necessary, even if the tech itself is very mature.
Besides, the mass of shielding and armoring/hardening for the reactor core necessary to make it reasonably safe and resilient in a crash on the Earth's surface or in the atmosphere would likely render the thing unable to leave the ground, atomic engine or no.
That's the whole idea behind landers. Leave the heaviest parts like the main interplanetary/interstellar propulsion systems and fuel/tanks in orbit where you need it, and not waste energy hauling them up and down a gravity well for no reason.
I'm so disappointed in mankind. Back in the late '70s, I was certain we'd have a semi-permanent station/lab/etc at Earth's La Grange points and at least sent several manned missions to Mars by 2012.
Nonsense. It is like saying that if the police catch me selling several bags of drug, they should leave me free (and let me keep the drug) until the trial finishes.
No.
It's like if the government stopped you and seized your property and either kept & used it or sold it, keeping the proceeds, without any due process or determination of guilt required....Oh, wait.
Well, what about using Biofuels? And also, if the crew was vegan, it would save a lot of energy on food! Meat take a lot of energy to produce, each time you eat at KFC it's the same thing as drinking half a barrel of petrol!
GAIA!
Biofuels!?
But...but...
We'd have to wait until we find aliens to give carbon credits to!
I'm surprised at your irresponsible environmental attitude. It's reckless plans like yours that will result in an AUW catastrophe (Anthropomorphic Universe Warming) and completely destroy the natural course of entropy! [shudder]
You mean like the Challenger and Columbia? Except with nuclear fallout.
What, are you a Flash Gordon fan!?
Nobody designs even a chemical-powered interplanetary spaceship to land it's main mass (including it's main propulsion system) on a planet surface. That's what landers are for. Even Apollo used a Lunar Module to land on the moon and a small Command Module for Earth re-entry.
This thing would be assembled in orbit and would never land on a planet. For something like a nuclear-powered interstellar spaceship, I imagine most of the construction would be done in low Earth orbit and then moved to a parking orbit at a La Grange point for final departure preparations, including loading the nuclear fuel.
I think you understand this, but are allowing your nuclear fears to cause you to post ridiculous and unrealistic scenarios in an effort to fight the idea of nuclear-powered space propulsion systems.
Doesn't that sound like a conveniently vague catch all for justifying corporate or governmental control over people?
I'm sorry Citizen, but your statement fails to inspire happy-happy, joy-joy feelings in everyone around you.
Please remain at your present location and await a Protect-Serve patrol that will assist you by transporting you to the nearest Community Adjustment Center to modify your outlook and behavior so as to inspire happy-happy, joy-joy thoughts in yourself and those around you.
Failure to comply may result in a minimum 70 year stay at the nearest cryo-prison facility where you will be subliminally re-educated while in stasis to help you extract maximum self-joy by being an asset to proper, civilized society.
If somebody set off a nuke in D.C. and wiped out the entire Federal government, I think at this point I'd celebrate. It would be the best thing to happen to the USA in a century.
The only problem with freedom of expression is that it makes talk so cheap.
What are you saying here? Should people who express opinions that make you uncomfortable or that you find offensive pay some sort of price? If so, who decide what's acceptable and what the penalties are?
There *are* actually insane people that just want to shoot everyone, then themselves. These people would love to get on a plane with a gun and shoot all the passengers, just because.
To quote from a TV ad featuring a startlingly talkative and mature infant in a diaper;
"You do realize your chances of winning are the same as being mauled by a polar bar and a regular bear on the same day, right?"
Hold a new Constitutional Convention and re-establish the best of the original Constitution and include certain changes, deletions, and additions, incorporating the knowledge and experience we've gained in ~250 years of how things went wrong in mind. Just me here, but I would strongly advise even more & stronger restrictions on the power and size of government. Big government doesn't seem to have worked out so well for us.
No language to prohibit, I was understanding that the federal government has no power that is not specifically given so would the lack of such language mean no permission to do so? Or am I just wrong on that?
That's the old way to read the Constitution. The new way to read it is that anything not specifically prohibited is allowed, and those things specifically prohibited can be done, you just have to justify it by saying "terrorism!", "the children!", or simply enact it with an Executive Order and/or through regulations.
If somebody set off a nuke in D.C. and wiped out the entire Federal government, I think at this point I'd celebrate. It would be the best thing to happen to the USA in a century.
And you're the expert who knows all that? Wow, you must be some kind of super-duper genius way beyond Einstein.
Think about it little boy: thousands of scientists have spent decades of their lives studying this stuff and YOU know more than they do? I tried to explain things to you kindly, but apparently you're just a troll, whom I really shouldn't feed. Nonetheless, here's my parting advice:
* study math * study biology * make a few friends * get your meds adjusted * try to enjoy life without being a troll
OK, let's see what we have here in your reply.
>Condescension - Check
>Ad hominem attacks - Check
>More condescension - Check
>Yet another ad hominem attack - Check
But, according to you, the Anonymous Coward, I'm the "troll".
I do not think that word means what you think it does.
Which actually doesn't surprise me, coming from someone who demonstrably doesn't understand how real science works.
"I'm laughing at the 'superior intellect'." - James T. Kirk | Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan
When you get to college you'll learn more about how the real world works. Right now, you're in your "know-it-all" phase.
I suggest you try to latch on to an research project as an undergrad assistant. You'll learn a few things. In the mean time, stop insulting people.
I'll take it under advisement, Mr. "When You Get To College" Condescending AsW^W^Anonymous Coward.
Rest assured, your recommendations will receive all the attention they deserve.
Your post does tell me, however, that you've run out of excuses as to why flawed pseudo-science should be believed based on opinion and "consensus".
Hell, if the AGW proponents could show me enough solid science to make a solid enough case, I'd be the first in line to advocate for their positions and policies. The AGW opponents haven't made a solid case either. All there is, is political partisan fighting by both sides. The actual science has been left far behind in the face of the prioritizing of political power games by both sides, rather than on actually improving the science.
There simply isn't enough knowledge of the intimate workings of the global climate system, nor enough valid data, to make any calls either way at this point in time. At least not with enough certainty to justify the enormous costs in national wealth, lives, and suffering necessary to make any meaningful changes in the global climate trend in a short enough time frame to be relevant, especially given that huge nations like China, India, etc won't participate and thus require even more drastic and severe measures by those that do.
>"Opinions are meaningless in science" In principle this is true but vastly oversimplified. The problem is that if you do an experiment you may have done it correctly; or you may have done it incorrectly, or you may have done it partially correctly. When other people repeat your methods and produce results, they may have done it correctly, they may have done it incorrectly, or they may have done it partially correctly.
What you describe is insufficient documentation of the experiments. Documentation is there precisely to remove fallible human opinion and "consensus" from spoiling the data and results.
It's sloppy pseudo-science, and has no place in helping to determine our chances for survival as a species.
The easiest example is Newtonian physics: all the motion experiments conducted before 1900 repeatedly, empirically and conclusively "proved" that Newtonian physics was correct. Then some other guys came along and showed that it didn't work at high relative velocities or very small sizes. The opinions of pre-1900 experts turned out to be wrong, or at least incomplete.
Thanks, you made my point for me.
The human species is nowhere near advanced enough yet in our understanding of medium to long term global climate system prediction to be engaging in policies and actions that will significantly negatively affect entire populations, and may well even end up making our situation MUCH worse.
The fact that you and others advocate accepting and acting on data and theories that aren't anywhere even *near* as solid as Newtonian physics was, frightens me.
I see a "B" sci-fi climate-disaster movie plot in real-life development.
The science must be wrong because you don't want it to be true.
Actually, I'm still waiting for some science. Actual science. With verifiable hard data and repeatable empiric experimental results.
Not some lame-ass "9 out of 10 dentists...err...'climate scientists' agree..." marketing-speak. This is our only planet's climate and our continued survival as a species, not a freakin' toothpaste advertisement. "We think" and "chances are good" isn't good enough. Not when an "oopsie!" can mean extinction, or at the least, widespread suffering, death, and destruction.
You're making a political argument, not a scientific one.
I'm not "arguing" anything. Again, I'm simply stating cause & effect. In order for there to theoretically be enough change in Co2 levels to take a significant-enough bite out of the projected rate of global temperature rise to matter, the things I mentioned would probably be at the lower range of the changes that would necessarily have to occur as a consequence of the drastic reductions in Co2 output that would have to occur.
he fact is that solar PV power is on its way to being less expensive that coal power before 2020 so I'm not sure that Obama's statement in accurate any more. But in 2008 the reduction in cost of solar PV wasn't as evident at it is now.
Solar PV power cannot supply baseline loads and so will have only minimal effects on average electricity rates because of the intermittent and unpredictable nature of PV (day/night, weather, etc), not because of unit cost.
Of course fossil fuel power has all sorts of external costs that are not accounted for in the price of the energy it produces. If they were electricity rates would skyrocket even without switching to renewable energy.
Which is exactly why government interference in the energy industry is a bad thing. Government subsidies are what allow prices to not reflect actual costs. That and "targeted" tax policies I would argue actually do more harm to, and delay the implementation of, truly cost efficient alternative energy sources.
Technologies cannot be made mature by government subsidy or changes to certain tax rates or environmental regulations. Those things can only delay paying the piper for attempting to force the use of energy sources/technologies that are not yet mature and efficient enough to be cost effective and practical.
Maybe I was not clear what I meant by "consensus:" it means that a prevailing opinion must arise in the community of scholars who are most familiar with the field.
Opinions are meaningless in science. Consensus is meaningless in science. Only hard, provable data and repeatable results from empiric experiments have any meaning in science. Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one, and most stink. All that consensus is, is agreement on the repulsiveness of the stench.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, you are claiming that an hungarian jew, which was 15 at the end of World War II, was a Nazi collaborateur?
Somehow I feel less enclined to even read or check your other statements.
How about George's own words?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ2U6Rl98PM
Oops. Maybe you'd better check some of your other uninformed assumptions after you "check my other statements". Just sayin'
Strat
Pay no attention to the Koch behind the curtain...
At least the Koch brothers aren't former unapologetic Nazi collaborators and haven't played a key role in 6 past and ongoing international financial/currency collapses and 8 regime collapses like the Liberal/Progressive Democrat contributor George Soros who funds and/or controls dozens of groups on the left.
Soros: http://keywiki.org/index.php/George_Soros
Soros' Organizations: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=589
This Koch brothers hysteria is nothing but those on the left attempting to find someone...anyone...on the right that's anywhere near the "rich evil genius" equal of the left's George Soros. In terms of harm done and general evilness, Soros makes Bernie Madoff look like a piker. The Koch brothers don't even show up on the radar at Soros' level of evil.
Strat
"What kind of "accidents" do you mean here? We're talking about an interstellar spaceship that stays in space and doesn't ever land."
1, Challenger blew up during takeoff, so all the bullshit about Langrangian points is perfectly irrelevant
2, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_5_Flight_501#Launch_failure [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos-3M#Accidents [wikipedia.org]
4, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fobos-Grunt#Post-launch [wikipedia.org]
These are accdents all launch related accidents, and the list is not complete.
I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse or trolling at this point.
Do you honestly not get that the ship is never launched from Earth? That it would be built in space?
You wouldn't even fuel the thing until you had it parked way out at a La Grange point ready for departure. The fuel would be sent in small quantities, a little at a time. Heck, the fuel may not even come from Earth at all. It might come from a lunar mining operation along with many of the raw materials for the structural components.
The electronics may be the only parts to climb the gravity well up from Earth. Depending on how far in the future this starship project would occur, even that may not be necessary. It may quite well be the case that the first starship may for all intents and purposes be entirely the product of materials and resources gathered from places other than Earth. Even if the first ship isn't built almost entirely from off-Earth materials, it's certain that if following ships are built, at some point that will become true.
There's really no reason why such a ship would ever come any closer to the Earth than lunar orbit or parked at a La Grange point.
You're in far, far, far more danger from existing terrestrial reactors than you would be from any nuclear accident regarding the fueling/operations of a nuclear-powered starship that may never come close enough to see from Earth without very sophisticated optics.
Strat
...the corruption and losses of individual freedoms such a system in...
Oops. That should read:
the corruption and losses of individual freedoms such a system insures...
Strat
The less government involvement there is in business, the less business will want/need to be involved in government.
Simple logic, really.
For some reason, there are many who only complain about the corporate side of this without realizing the cause - which is the government's involvement in the first place (or the government's ability to be involved).
Limited government is a good thing. You don't get to require unending government involvement without paying the price of corruption. Never has happened in history, never will.
The irony of Larry Lessig voting for big government while decrying corruption is delicious - decrying the effects while supporting the cause is just craziness.
This!
People want it all without any of the consequences. They want all the benefits and lack of personal responsibility, and all the creature comforts of an entitlement society, but ignore and deny the corruption and losses of individual freedoms such a system in, and/or blame the negative consequences on those who oppose the expansion of the government's reach and power and on "the rich".
The authors of the Constitution understood that the only way to prevent unbearable levels of government corruption is to prevent government from becoming large and powerful enough to be a tempting target for bribery/influence.
Strat
...closest Earth-Moon La Grange point (L2)...
Oops. Should read L1, not L2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point
Strat
I'm talking about accidents, obviously. Space rockets are more fragile and less reliable than our usual nuclear power plants. That's what I'm talking about. Assembling the thing in the orbit doesn't really change the fact that space rockets are prone to fail.
What kind of "accidents" do you mean here? We're talking about an interstellar spaceship that stays in space and doesn't ever land. If you're worried about a meltdown or explosion in space, then I hate to break it to you, but there are a whole lot of extremely dangerous, deadly-radiation-emitting, and lethal things in space. One of the most dangerous is a titanic ongoing thermonuclear reaction millions of times the size of Earth only about 93 million miles away, which is practically in our laps.
Assuming the ship is finished and fueled at the closest Earth-Moon La Grange point (L2), that still puts the starship just 37,000 miles closer to the Earth than the moon. All the other La Grange points are either the same distance as the moon or further away from Earth. You could set off every nuclear/thermonuclear weapon that's ever existed on the planet up to this time at once at that distance and you'd never know it, unless you happened to be looking at that point at the right moment.
I just don't get the fear. It seems purely emotional and not based on logic at all.
Strat
[sarc]
Well, obviously, the fuel will be sent up in one huge and extremely dangerous near-critical-mass lump to maximize the possible danger rather than some other boring way, like over time in small quantities on multiple.Earth-to-LEO launches.
[/sarc]
C'mon, dude! Seriously!?!?
I know this is rocket science and nuclear science, but this is Slashdot!
Please turn in your geek card at the door on your way out for not being able to figure out that you don't send all the fissionable material into orbit on one launch vehicle!
Strat
If not, why not use a nuclear engine to get off the surface?
Short answer: Shit happens.
Longer answer:
Why tempt Murphy's Law and/or an unlucky turn of the odds? Seems to me to just be smart risk management if you choose NOT to have critical fission piles screaming through the atmosphere of an inhabited planet at thousands of miles per hour if it's not necessary, even if the tech itself is very mature.
Besides, the mass of shielding and armoring/hardening for the reactor core necessary to make it reasonably safe and resilient in a crash on the Earth's surface or in the atmosphere would likely render the thing unable to leave the ground, atomic engine or no.
That's the whole idea behind landers. Leave the heaviest parts like the main interplanetary/interstellar propulsion systems and fuel/tanks in orbit where you need it, and not waste energy hauling them up and down a gravity well for no reason.
I'm so disappointed in mankind. Back in the late '70s, I was certain we'd have a semi-permanent station/lab/etc at Earth's La Grange points and at least sent several manned missions to Mars by 2012.
Strat
Nonsense. It is like saying that if the police catch me selling several bags of drug, they should leave me free (and let me keep the drug) until the trial finishes.
No.
It's like if the government stopped you and seized your property and either kept & used it or sold it, keeping the proceeds, without any due process or determination of guilt required. ...Oh, wait.
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Forfeiture
Strat
Well, what about using Biofuels? And also, if the crew was vegan, it would save a lot of energy on food! Meat take a lot of energy to produce, each time you eat at KFC it's the same thing as drinking half a barrel of petrol!
GAIA!
Biofuels!?
But...but...
We'd have to wait until we find aliens to give carbon credits to!
I'm surprised at your irresponsible environmental attitude. It's reckless plans like yours that will result in an AUW catastrophe (Anthropomorphic Universe Warming) and completely destroy the natural course of entropy! [shudder]
You make baby stars cry.
Strat
You mean like the Challenger and Columbia? Except with nuclear fallout.
What, are you a Flash Gordon fan!?
Nobody designs even a chemical-powered interplanetary spaceship to land it's main mass (including it's main propulsion system) on a planet surface. That's what landers are for. Even Apollo used a Lunar Module to land on the moon and a small Command Module for Earth re-entry.
This thing would be assembled in orbit and would never land on a planet. For something like a nuclear-powered interstellar spaceship, I imagine most of the construction would be done in low Earth orbit and then moved to a parking orbit at a La Grange point for final departure preparations, including loading the nuclear fuel.
I think you understand this, but are allowing your nuclear fears to cause you to post ridiculous and unrealistic scenarios in an effort to fight the idea of nuclear-powered space propulsion systems.
Strat
...targeting lifestyle "mistakes"
Doesn't that sound like a conveniently vague catch all for justifying corporate or governmental control over people?
I'm sorry Citizen, but your statement fails to inspire happy-happy, joy-joy feelings in everyone around you.
Please remain at your present location and await a Protect-Serve patrol that will assist you by transporting you to the nearest Community Adjustment Center to modify your outlook and behavior so as to inspire happy-happy, joy-joy thoughts in yourself and those around you.
Failure to comply may result in a minimum 70 year stay at the nearest cryo-prison facility where you will be subliminally re-educated while in stasis to help you extract maximum self-joy by being an asset to proper, civilized society.
Be Well and Consume.
What are you saying here? Should people who express opinions that make you uncomfortable or that you find offensive pay some sort of price? If so, who decide what's acceptable and what the penalties are?
Strat
There *are* actually insane people that just want to shoot everyone, then themselves. These people would love to get on a plane with a gun and shoot all the passengers, just because.
To quote from a TV ad featuring a startlingly talkative and mature infant in a diaper;
"You do realize your chances of winning are the same as being mauled by a polar bar and a regular bear on the same day, right?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqVBKO_QM3o
Strat
The Department of Save our Children from the Terrorists.
I always thought it was "Department of Save Our Children and Kids from Terrorists"...
Better-known as the infamous "Dept. of SOCK Terrorists". :D
Strat
What do you do then?
Hold a new Constitutional Convention and re-establish the best of the original Constitution and include certain changes, deletions, and additions, incorporating the knowledge and experience we've gained in ~250 years of how things went wrong in mind. Just me here, but I would strongly advise even more & stronger restrictions on the power and size of government. Big government doesn't seem to have worked out so well for us.
Strat
No language to prohibit, I was understanding that the federal government has no power that is not specifically given so would the lack of such language mean no permission to do so? Or am I just wrong on that?
That's the old way to read the Constitution. The new way to read it is that anything not specifically prohibited is allowed, and those things specifically prohibited can be done, you just have to justify it by saying "terrorism!", "the children!", or simply enact it with an Executive Order and/or through regulations.
If somebody set off a nuke in D.C. and wiped out the entire Federal government, I think at this point I'd celebrate. It would be the best thing to happen to the USA in a century.
Strat
And you're the expert who knows all that? Wow, you must be some kind of super-duper genius way beyond Einstein.
Think about it little boy: thousands of scientists have spent decades of their lives studying this stuff and YOU know more than they do? I tried to explain things to you kindly, but apparently you're just a troll, whom I really shouldn't feed. Nonetheless, here's my parting advice:
* study math
* study biology
* make a few friends
* get your meds adjusted
* try to enjoy life without being a troll
OK, let's see what we have here in your reply.
>Condescension - Check
>Ad hominem attacks - Check
>More condescension - Check
>Yet another ad hominem attack - Check
But, according to you, the Anonymous Coward, I'm the "troll".
I do not think that word means what you think it does.
Which actually doesn't surprise me, coming from someone who demonstrably doesn't understand how real science works.
"I'm laughing at the 'superior intellect'." - James T. Kirk | Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan
Strat
When you get to college you'll learn more about how the real world works. Right now, you're in your "know-it-all" phase.
I suggest you try to latch on to an research project as an undergrad assistant. You'll learn a few things. In the mean time, stop insulting people.
I'll take it under advisement, Mr. "When You Get To College" Condescending AsW^W^Anonymous Coward.
Rest assured, your recommendations will receive all the attention they deserve.
Your post does tell me, however, that you've run out of excuses as to why flawed pseudo-science should be believed based on opinion and "consensus".
Hell, if the AGW proponents could show me enough solid science to make a solid enough case, I'd be the first in line to advocate for their positions and policies. The AGW opponents haven't made a solid case either. All there is, is political partisan fighting by both sides. The actual science has been left far behind in the face of the prioritizing of political power games by both sides, rather than on actually improving the science.
There simply isn't enough knowledge of the intimate workings of the global climate system, nor enough valid data, to make any calls either way at this point in time. At least not with enough certainty to justify the enormous costs in national wealth, lives, and suffering necessary to make any meaningful changes in the global climate trend in a short enough time frame to be relevant, especially given that huge nations like China, India, etc won't participate and thus require even more drastic and severe measures by those that do.
Strat
>"Opinions are meaningless in science"
In principle this is true but vastly oversimplified. The problem is that if you do an experiment you may have done it correctly; or you may have done it incorrectly, or you may have done it partially correctly. When other people repeat your methods and produce results, they may have done it correctly, they may have done it incorrectly, or they may have done it partially correctly.
What you describe is insufficient documentation of the experiments. Documentation is there precisely to remove fallible human opinion and "consensus" from spoiling the data and results.
It's sloppy pseudo-science, and has no place in helping to determine our chances for survival as a species.
The easiest example is Newtonian physics: all the motion experiments conducted before 1900 repeatedly, empirically and conclusively "proved" that Newtonian physics was correct. Then some other guys came along and showed that it didn't work at high relative velocities or very small sizes. The opinions of pre-1900 experts turned out to be wrong, or at least incomplete.
Thanks, you made my point for me.
The human species is nowhere near advanced enough yet in our understanding of medium to long term global climate system prediction to be engaging in policies and actions that will significantly negatively affect entire populations, and may well even end up making our situation MUCH worse.
The fact that you and others advocate accepting and acting on data and theories that aren't anywhere even *near* as solid as Newtonian physics was, frightens me.
I see a "B" sci-fi climate-disaster movie plot in real-life development.
Strat
Hey, what say we give the Federal government even *more* revenue, power, and control, and increase it's size and scope even more!
I mean, just look around!
That's worked SO well over the last 60-80 years to bring us to the Utopia we have now, hasn't it?
[crickets]
Strat
The science must be wrong because you don't want it to be true.
Actually, I'm still waiting for some science. Actual science. With verifiable hard data and repeatable empiric experimental results.
Not some lame-ass "9 out of 10 dentists...err...'climate scientists' agree..." marketing-speak. This is our only planet's climate and our continued survival as a species, not a freakin' toothpaste advertisement. "We think" and "chances are good" isn't good enough. Not when an "oopsie!" can mean extinction, or at the least, widespread suffering, death, and destruction.
Strat
You're making a political argument, not a scientific one.
I'm not "arguing" anything. Again, I'm simply stating cause & effect. In order for there to theoretically be enough change in Co2 levels to take a significant-enough bite out of the projected rate of global temperature rise to matter, the things I mentioned would probably be at the lower range of the changes that would necessarily have to occur as a consequence of the drastic reductions in Co2 output that would have to occur.
he fact is that solar PV power is on its way to being less expensive that coal power before 2020 so I'm not sure that Obama's statement in accurate any more. But in 2008 the reduction in cost of solar PV wasn't as evident at it is now.
Solar PV power cannot supply baseline loads and so will have only minimal effects on average electricity rates because of the intermittent and unpredictable nature of PV (day/night, weather, etc), not because of unit cost.
Of course fossil fuel power has all sorts of external costs that are not accounted for in the price of the energy it produces. If they were electricity rates would skyrocket even without switching to renewable energy.
Which is exactly why government interference in the energy industry is a bad thing. Government subsidies are what allow prices to not reflect actual costs. That and "targeted" tax policies I would argue actually do more harm to, and delay the implementation of, truly cost efficient alternative energy sources.
Technologies cannot be made mature by government subsidy or changes to certain tax rates or environmental regulations. Those things can only delay paying the piper for attempting to force the use of energy sources/technologies that are not yet mature and efficient enough to be cost effective and practical.
Strat
Maybe I was not clear what I meant by "consensus:" it means that a prevailing opinion must arise in the community of scholars who are most familiar with the field.
Opinions are meaningless in science. Consensus is meaningless in science. Only hard, provable data and repeatable results from empiric experiments have any meaning in science. Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one, and most stink. All that consensus is, is agreement on the repulsiveness of the stench.
Strat