if the best you can come up with is "some smart guy said so", then you should stay out of a debate
No, I came up with better than that. I said "most smart guys who actually know anything about the subject say so".
Arguments based on "this smart guy said so" are meaningless.
Arguments about things which are outside your own field of expertise are even more meaningless. If you're a layman, you have to rely on the opinions of experts.
And the experts pretty much all say global warming exists, and is man-made.
Who's this "we" you talk so boldly about, who do "not know" so many things? What gives you the authority to say what the rest of us do or do not know?
"We" know quite a bit, as it turns out, thanks to the hard work of climate scientists. Now, you may not know much about it, but please leave the rest of us out of your claims of ignorance.
Because the motives of researchers are pure and faultless, and their predictive abilities on climate change have been accurate so far, we should trust them blindly?
Are you claiming an entire field of science is corrupt, then?
Nope. Sorry. Scientists want funding, influence, and respect as much as every other human being. It's a lot sexier (and more profitable) to claim the world is going to end than it is to say that every thing is okay, really.
No, it's sexy to challenge conventional wisdom. Really. That's where the fame is.
I'm a member of the generation that was sold "Global Cooling" by the same scientists in the 1970's.
There was already a link posted to debunk that myth. Once again, no, the "same scientists" did not "sell" global cooling.
But if you still want to claim that, how about you give us some names of those "same scientists"? Or some papers they published on the topic?
Prepare more than one hypothesis. Global warming can only be anthropogenic.
Are you implying that climate scientists haven't exhaustively studied the different possible causes of global warming? Because claiming that would be an outright lie, you know.
A particularly apt tag for Slashdot, as the article clearly lists many specific things that could go wrong, but to realize that people would actually have to read the article. And we know that isn't going to happen when there's a chance to post snarky memes.
Of course they can do that. They don't, because it's a bad idea.
Landing on the surface with rockets kicks up dust, for one, so you need to protect the rover from that with a dustproof shell. Which adds weight, which you can't afford. And then you need to get the rover down on the ground. And so on.
Is it really so hard to actually consider the fact that NASA may have put some actual THOUGHT to this?
Because insurance companies totally run checks to see if you happen to be one of the ten people on the planet whose DNA is publicly available and then analyze it.
Slashdot Mirror
if the best you can come up with is "some smart guy said so", then you should stay out of a debate
No, I came up with better than that. I said "most smart guys who actually know anything about the subject say so".
Arguments based on "this smart guy said so" are meaningless.
Arguments about things which are outside your own field of expertise are even more meaningless. If you're a layman, you have to rely on the opinions of experts.
And the experts pretty much all say global warming exists, and is man-made.
Who's this "we" you talk so boldly about, who do "not know" so many things? What gives you the authority to say what the rest of us do or do not know?
"We" know quite a bit, as it turns out, thanks to the hard work of climate scientists. Now, you may not know much about it, but please leave the rest of us out of your claims of ignorance.
No, there are also plenty of libertarians who refuse to accept global warming for some kind of strange ideological reason.
Because the motives of researchers are pure and faultless, and their predictive abilities on climate change have been accurate so far, we should trust them blindly?
Are you claiming an entire field of science is corrupt, then?
Nope. Sorry. Scientists want funding, influence, and respect as much as every other human being. It's a lot sexier (and more profitable) to claim the world is going to end than it is to say that every thing is okay, really.
No, it's sexy to challenge conventional wisdom. Really. That's where the fame is.
I'm a member of the generation that was sold "Global Cooling" by the same scientists in the 1970's.
There was already a link posted to debunk that myth. Once again, no, the "same scientists" did not "sell" global cooling.
But if you still want to claim that, how about you give us some names of those "same scientists"? Or some papers they published on the topic?
Prepare more than one hypothesis. Global warming can only be anthropogenic.
Are you implying that climate scientists haven't exhaustively studied the different possible causes of global warming? Because claiming that would be an outright lie, you know.
Oh, so the opinions of laymen and experts in their field of study are worth exactly the same, then?
And? It's not the IPCC who does the science.
Who's going to pay for THAT?
Actually, meaning "anybody claiming to have a scientific degree".
30,000 "scientists", meaning "anybody with a scientific degree". Certainly not 30,000 climate scientists.
So that's "evidence" to you?
"Others who may be ignorant", like (once again) an entire field of science?
It's a shame scientists don't have the internet so they can go to that website and realize everything they've ever done is wrong!
Gee, you could try actually reading the article and seeing if it answers any of those questions for you.
The concern is that we won't cut back CO2 enough (and looking at the current state of things, this is quite likely), and we need a backup plan.
But gee, maybe you're right, that kind of thinking sure makes you deserving of nothing but death, doesn't it?
A particularly apt tag for Slashdot, as the article clearly lists many specific things that could go wrong, but to realize that people would actually have to read the article. And we know that isn't going to happen when there's a chance to post snarky memes.
No, lies are rarely tolerated.
What part of sun cycles and sun weather don't you guys get?
Gee, it's too bad an entire field of science just doesn't get "sun cycles and sun weather"! Good thing you showed up to tell them!
No, it wasn't. No, we weren't.
Read the goddamn linked article, will you?
Me, I don't seem to recall the Viking landers carrying any one-ton rovers.
If you were actually as smart as you think you are, you would have gone and found out yourself why they didn't attach landing jets to the rover.
Instead, you chose to trumpet your own ignorance as if it proved you to be smarter than others.
Of course they can do that. They don't, because it's a bad idea.
Landing on the surface with rockets kicks up dust, for one, so you need to protect the rover from that with a dustproof shell. Which adds weight, which you can't afford. And then you need to get the rover down on the ground. And so on.
Is it really so hard to actually consider the fact that NASA may have put some actual THOUGHT to this?
Too bad you weren't on the team so they could hear from a real expert about how to land on Mars!
Gee, too bad nobody thought of that before they built it!
Because insurance companies totally run checks to see if you happen to be one of the ten people on the planet whose DNA is publicly available and then analyze it.
Jokes are only allowed in explicitly marked humour zones.
People hate change, news at eleven.