You think there's any comparison at all between the way a for-profit military contractor develops technology and the appalling, childish debacle that is ITER?
Were ITER the only feasible direction then yeah, I'd be right with you.
LMOL, yeah your a physicist.....it's my lunch hour so I'm a gynecologist....moron...
WTF? What's so hard to believe about mbone being a physicist? There are plenty of highly-skilled and very intelligent people on this forum.
Your post does lead me to wonder if you wouldn't find a different discussion group more suited to your tastes, say,/b/ perhaps? As a bonus, you won't need to furrow your brow using that pesky written word thing there.
We're not the first species on Planet Earth to outcompete other species and we won't be the last....
I quite agree, however with all the potential for floods, droughts, disease, earthquakes, volcanoes and the ever-present Damocles sword of a meteor strike that comes with life on Earth I'd really rather we weren't responsible for another disaster resulting in the extinction of those lifeforms that had survived until now.
If Humanity finds itself severely curtailed by the results of AGW because we collectively refuse to believe anything is wrong, we will get everything we deserve. Time will tell how much we've really contributed to the problem.
Far more upsetting to me is the accompanying loss of diversity in the planet's flora and fauna. A criminal act perhaps significant enough for our hidden alien overlords to step in to straighten things out? A nice fantasy.
The hypothetical aliens may consider atheism primitive and dangerous.
Looks like you misspelt organised religion there my friend. We've ample evidence throughout history that religion keeps people primitive and makes them more dangerous than they ever were before their religious 'enlightenment'.
I think it quite understandable that an advanced species would choose to avoid Earth until this particularly nasty form of collective insanity and off-loading of personal responsibility has run its course.
Does that mean believing in God puts you into this group as well? What about if you are 'spiritually' inclined?
Well, perhaps surprisingly, I'm actually with you on those last two; there are few deaths attributed to spiritualism after all. However it seems to me that when such beliefs are allowed to develop into organised religion, the self-preservation instincts of said organisation soon take over and the original purpose is lost; worse, the organisation can easily become a dark parody of the original intent.
Is it any wonder I'd rather listen to atheists and people who identify as 'spiritual' rather than 'religious'? We've all seen what religion has managed to achieve throughout our history. Time for a new direction, I'd say.
Well, it does seem a little silly, even though I'm as anti-war as the next (thinking) person.
Is there a chance that the military might obsolete itself in the same way as many of the workers in our economy, myself included? There *are* considerable benefits to using drones for the dying work after all. This doesn't necessarily mean the end of boots-on-the-ground soldiers but one would hope military budgets around the world could be scaled back as a result of 'going drone'.
Of course, this is just speculation and I'd be the first to agree I know nothing significant about any of these topics. I definitely dream of seeing Humanity freed from the need to work for a living. We moved beyond needing almost everyone in the fields and I hope we can do the same for work itself.
My understanding is that short of enforced sterlisation or genocide, an improved standard of living and quality of life is the only sure way to curb population growth.
If the world really wants to see Africa bootstrapped out of poverty, we'd be focusing our efforts on the aid groups that are already providing tools, techniques and technologies (too tautological?) that can enable self-sufficiency for African villages wherever possible.
We send altogether too much aid in the form of food and goods which will always be a juicy target for the local factions.
Look it sounds great and all (and I get that you're probably only half-serious) but now you've taken all those gainfully-employed taxpaying soldiers, lawyers, managers and put them on the dole where they'll be a net drain.
People talk about reducing the military all the time but forget that making a bunch of (often, highly-skilled) workers redundant, forcing them to sit around being miserably broke and unemployed all day is hardly an improvement.
Or is the invisible hand meant to wave this problem away?
Since we are designed in His image... it would explain the lack of miracles lately and politicians destroying His works.
Why do the religious always portray God as male? We seem to accept 'mother Earth' as a concept of fertility and natural growth, so why would the being that gave birth to all of creation be male rather than female?
I can think of many cynical and snarky answers myself but what I really want is a genuine reply. Oh and "Because the Bible says so" is not the answer I'm looking for here.
You know what's cheaper? Get off your ass, walk down there, and say "John, we really appreciate what you did last night. Really, personally, thank you. If you need to leave a little early today you go ahead, your manager told me how late you were up. Good job." That employee will be glued to that chair for the next 6 months guaranteed. Yet this never, ever, happens.
I agree entirely and have always wondered why this never happens. As I grew older (and more cynical) I developed a simple hypothesis and I'm interested to know if, in your experience, it has any merit.
I believe that the Human ego is very fragile. It is easily damaged but (more germane to my point) seems so easily distended out of shape. I'm talking about those people who are easily changed by 'status' events, such as buying a new BMW or Mercedes, being promoted at work, running their own business etc. From my perspective it seems that we're all easily fooled by ourselves into thinking stuff like "I really *am* better than that person!" With that attitude, the act of personally thanking a rank-and-file staff member would be seen by a CxO as something beneath themselves.
In New Zealand the ex-CEO of our largest telco, the imaginatively named Telecom, was known for her arrogance; according to staff I've spoken to Theresa Gattung would typically demand entire floors of Telecom's buildings be cleared of staff if she happened to have a meeting in that building. The reasoning as I understand it was that she didn't want to even look at a staff member, much less have to suffer the indignity of potentially sharing a bathroom with them.
Assuming this is a true story, this sort of behaviour just makes me nauseous. How much of this did you really see in your dealings with senior management?
Fair comment, I guess I missed your earlier post because I mistook the context of your comment. There are a disturbing (and surprising) number of apologists on this forum and figured your post was as such. Apologies for the faulty assumption.
What a looney bunch that has a great deal in common with the worst leaders in history.
From the perspective of the rest of the world, the D's and the R's fit this description equally well. North Americans who argue D over R or vice-versa at this stage in the game are merely advertising their own political naivete and willingness to be duped.
It costs half a billion US dollars or more to mount a presidential campaign, effectively ensuring the incoming president will remain forever beholden to the big money interests that backed their campaign.
This would be a great argument for those in favour of unregulated, free-market capitalism. Well, it certainly might be, were we discussing anything other than the presidency of the US.
It's a very real problem because the people whose oxen are about to be gored have a shitload of money, and nothing to lose by spending heavily now to prevent competition.
This gets my vote for 'most underrated comment of the thread'. Mellon points out a simple truth that should be shouted from the rooftops: "The Haves will spend if they feel they have to. That time is now! Their spending power can and will rapidly re-shape society for the worse". This is no conspiracy theory, this is simple human behaviour.
Western society such as it is in 2014 is still all about what the Money wants. Technology has given the Money a much longer and subtler arm than ever before but through all the smoke and mirrors it is still the Money doing what the Money wants.
Just because this is the way it is and the way it has always been doesn't mean we need to accept that this is the way it will always be. No person should be above the law and no goddamned bank balance should be capable of buying 'OJ Justice' for anyone. For us to collectively accept anything less is to allow the rot from the head to spread down the body.
We *must* demand better. The alternative is the death of our species for the sole benefit of the few wealthy elite who wouldn't live very long without the rest of us around to look after them anyway.
If that's our fate then so be it but it seems a damn shame to take so much of the ecosystem with us.
A growing number of those nuclear powers are either unstable, hostile, or both, towards the US and the West. Iran is probably next on the list to have that capability.
Indeed, Iran have been working at it long enough. I'm mildly surprised they don't already have sufficient weapons-grade material to conduct at least one small test.
I also wonder how much of the lovely Abdul Qadeer Khan's work has filtered out undetected to the dark corners of the globe. If you've time and haven't seen this before, the BBC's Nuclear Secrets doco is worth at least a cursory look (although watching it all is recommended). I was stunned by this story and am amazed that I hadn't heard of it before: Wikipedia summary and YouTube link.
Great post! I hope someone with points mods you up. We absolutely need to maintain rigorous objectivity if we're to address some of the big issues of our times; when the ranting volume goes up on hot-button issues it drowns out reason and eventually drives off the rational parties in the debate. Some even view this as a kind of victory, which is somewhat counter-productive (to put it mildly).
not only to mitigate against the risk of global worming
I have to confess to some nervousness at the prospect of this new threat!:-p
Thanks for the interesting reply and apologies for my delayed response.
You claim that we know what the deposition of CO2 does to the planet. No, that is precisely what is in dispute and why this author published this study. [snip] Proxies might be well understood and they might be the best method that can be used, but that doesn't make them accurate, nor does that make the use of them good science
Well, I'm certainly open to being proven wrong. I've no desire to place any burden of proof other than where it belongs or play any silly games in an attempt to hide my ignorance, so I'm going to concede to you at this time.
I was under the impression that CO2-influenced greenhouse effects were pretty well understood and that the proxies we're discussing (such as tree rings, ice cores, etc.) are usefully accurate over very long periods
Your rational approach to the topic suggests to me that I ought to look further into any controversy over the efficacy of these proxies and the levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Whilst a ranty argument is always on the cards with this subject, I appreciate the opportunity you provided for a sensible conversation on the matter and thank you for the prompt that will hopefully see me slightly more educated by the time I'm done.:)
Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with your post I'm still in shock at seeing the above (grammatically correct) sentence on slashdot, apostrophes and all! =)
Let's suppose that you're right, and it can be ascertained what the CO2 levels were 500 years ago. How, pray tell, are you going to get the temperature data?
OK, I'm not an expert but my understanding is that prior to 1850 we must rely upon proxies for temperature data, which I know you're not happy with (see below). I also agree with your supposition that a conventional bulb thermometer probably isn't the most accurate device with which to record temperature.
All of this is beside my point which is that we've vastly more carbon dioxide in our atmosphere now than in all of our history on Earth as Homo Sapiens Sapiens. We know what greenhouse gases do to the climate and we know there's a degree of time-lag between cause and effect. Whilst I agree that getting accurate temp measurements is important, when we have such clear readings for CO2 levels your argument sounds like you don't believe Rome burned down because nobody recorded the name of the tune Nero was playing on his fiddle at the time. Ugh, it's late and my metaphor-fu is weak right now.
I don't need to provide you any competing data. This author relies upon the growth of tree rings and depositions of sediment to infer what temperatures were. You show me how his methods of gathering data are reliable, and perhaps I'll be persuaded by you.
As mentioned before we must rely on proxies as we were obviously not present millions of years in the past to record the actual temperature. If you have a problem with this method of analysis you may well be right but you're going to need to do better than 'I feel it's unreliable' to convince me there's a real issue. I asked for facts in my last post and you tell me you don't need to provide any - there's precious little room for debate if you won't enumerate your concerns.
You employ a classic trick of shifting the burden of proof.
I'm sorry you feel I am engaging in tricks or subterfuge to debate you, I thought I was just pursuing your line of discussion, honestly. I've no agenda besides a desire for the truth, however pretty or ugly.
The burden of proof is on the author of the study, not upon me to prove him wrong. He must persuade his audience, not the other way around.
Except that it is you yourself who is making extraordinary claims, as proxies are a well understood and commonly-employed scientific tool for measurement. What evidence do you have that these proxies are flawed and unsuitable for use in the models we're discussing?
Slashdot Mirror
You think there's any comparison at all between the way a for-profit military contractor develops technology and the appalling, childish debacle that is ITER?
Were ITER the only feasible direction then yeah, I'd be right with you.
LMOL, yeah your a physicist.....it's my lunch hour so I'm a gynecologist....moron...
WTF? What's so hard to believe about mbone being a physicist? There are plenty of highly-skilled and very intelligent people on this forum.
Your post does lead me to wonder if you wouldn't find a different discussion group more suited to your tastes, say, /b/ perhaps? As a bonus, you won't need to furrow your brow using that pesky written word thing there.
Great response, I hope it catches the eye of someone with modpoints.
We're not the first species on Planet Earth to outcompete other species and we won't be the last....
I quite agree, however with all the potential for floods, droughts, disease, earthquakes, volcanoes and the ever-present Damocles sword of a meteor strike that comes with life on Earth I'd really rather we weren't responsible for another disaster resulting in the extinction of those lifeforms that had survived until now.
The same way that nuclear fusion is always GOING to be happening at some point.
Yes, about 2017 for demonstrable fusion power production and 2027 for full-scale commercial fusion plant operation. Chicken Little indeed.
Insightful and disturbing.
If Humanity finds itself severely curtailed by the results of AGW because we collectively refuse to believe anything is wrong, we will get everything we deserve. Time will tell how much we've really contributed to the problem.
Far more upsetting to me is the accompanying loss of diversity in the planet's flora and fauna. A criminal act perhaps significant enough for our hidden alien overlords to step in to straighten things out? A nice fantasy.
The hypothetical aliens may consider atheism primitive and dangerous.
Looks like you misspelt organised religion there my friend. We've ample evidence throughout history that religion keeps people primitive and makes them more dangerous than they ever were before their religious 'enlightenment'.
I think it quite understandable that an advanced species would choose to avoid Earth until this particularly nasty form of collective insanity and off-loading of personal responsibility has run its course.
Does that mean believing in God puts you into this group as well? What about if you are 'spiritually' inclined?
Well, perhaps surprisingly, I'm actually with you on those last two; there are few deaths attributed to spiritualism after all. However it seems to me that when such beliefs are allowed to develop into organised religion, the self-preservation instincts of said organisation soon take over and the original purpose is lost; worse, the organisation can easily become a dark parody of the original intent.
Is it any wonder I'd rather listen to atheists and people who identify as 'spiritual' rather than 'religious'? We've all seen what religion has managed to achieve throughout our history. Time for a new direction, I'd say.
Well, it does seem a little silly, even though I'm as anti-war as the next (thinking) person.
Is there a chance that the military might obsolete itself in the same way as many of the workers in our economy, myself included? There *are* considerable benefits to using drones for the dying work after all. This doesn't necessarily mean the end of boots-on-the-ground soldiers but one would hope military budgets around the world could be scaled back as a result of 'going drone'.
Of course, this is just speculation and I'd be the first to agree I know nothing significant about any of these topics. I definitely dream of seeing Humanity freed from the need to work for a living. We moved beyond needing almost everyone in the fields and I hope we can do the same for work itself.
My understanding is that short of enforced sterlisation or genocide, an improved standard of living and quality of life is the only sure way to curb population growth.
If the world really wants to see Africa bootstrapped out of poverty, we'd be focusing our efforts on the aid groups that are already providing tools, techniques and technologies (too tautological?) that can enable self-sufficiency for African villages wherever possible.
We send altogether too much aid in the form of food and goods which will always be a juicy target for the local factions.
I couldn't agree more, actually.
However, the prospect of firing half the military to 'save money' is not as tidy a solution as some would have you believe.
If you RTFA you would see the answer to this problem at the end
Do what? That's not how things are done around here.
BTW in your haste to tell me off, you failed to recognise that I was replying to a poster rather than commenting on TFA.
Perhaps you should improve yourself before worrying about how others act -- but hey, just a suggestion.
Re-read my post then your own - then ask yourself who it is here that has some sort of axe to grind.
Look it sounds great and all (and I get that you're probably only half-serious) but now you've taken all those gainfully-employed taxpaying soldiers, lawyers, managers and put them on the dole where they'll be a net drain.
People talk about reducing the military all the time but forget that making a bunch of (often, highly-skilled) workers redundant, forcing them to sit around being miserably broke and unemployed all day is hardly an improvement.
Or is the invisible hand meant to wave this problem away?
Since we are designed in His image... it would explain the lack of miracles lately and politicians destroying His works.
Why do the religious always portray God as male? We seem to accept 'mother Earth' as a concept of fertility and natural growth, so why would the being that gave birth to all of creation be male rather than female?
I can think of many cynical and snarky answers myself but what I really want is a genuine reply. Oh and "Because the Bible says so" is not the answer I'm looking for here.
You know what's cheaper? Get off your ass, walk down there, and say "John, we really appreciate what you did last night. Really, personally, thank you. If you need to leave a little early today you go ahead, your manager told me how late you were up. Good job." That employee will be glued to that chair for the next 6 months guaranteed. Yet this never, ever, happens.
I agree entirely and have always wondered why this never happens. As I grew older (and more cynical) I developed a simple hypothesis and I'm interested to know if, in your experience, it has any merit.
I believe that the Human ego is very fragile. It is easily damaged but (more germane to my point) seems so easily distended out of shape. I'm talking about those people who are easily changed by 'status' events, such as buying a new BMW or Mercedes, being promoted at work, running their own business etc. From my perspective it seems that we're all easily fooled by ourselves into thinking stuff like "I really *am* better than that person!" With that attitude, the act of personally thanking a rank-and-file staff member would be seen by a CxO as something beneath themselves.
In New Zealand the ex-CEO of our largest telco, the imaginatively named Telecom, was known for her arrogance; according to staff I've spoken to Theresa Gattung would typically demand entire floors of Telecom's buildings be cleared of staff if she happened to have a meeting in that building. The reasoning as I understand it was that she didn't want to even look at a staff member, much less have to suffer the indignity of potentially sharing a bathroom with them.
Assuming this is a true story, this sort of behaviour just makes me nauseous. How much of this did you really see in your dealings with senior management?
I'll wager it's because part of the solution includes the 'N' word - 'nuclear'.
Using ac posts now to 'stick up for yourself', K. S. Kyosuke? "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!", lmao.
I think we're all quite aware who is known for playing *that* game, APK.
Fair comment, I guess I missed your earlier post because I mistook the context of your comment. There are a disturbing (and surprising) number of apologists on this forum and figured your post was as such. Apologies for the faulty assumption.
What a looney bunch that has a great deal in common with the worst leaders in history.
From the perspective of the rest of the world, the D's and the R's fit this description equally well. North Americans who argue D over R or vice-versa at this stage in the game are merely advertising their own political naivete and willingness to be duped.
It costs half a billion US dollars or more to mount a presidential campaign, effectively ensuring the incoming president will remain forever beholden to the big money interests that backed their campaign.
This would be a great argument for those in favour of unregulated, free-market capitalism. Well, it certainly might be, were we discussing anything other than the presidency of the US.
It's a very real problem because the people whose oxen are about to be gored have a shitload of money, and nothing to lose by spending heavily now to prevent competition.
This gets my vote for 'most underrated comment of the thread'. Mellon points out a simple truth that should be shouted from the rooftops: "The Haves will spend if they feel they have to. That time is now! Their spending power can and will rapidly re-shape society for the worse". This is no conspiracy theory, this is simple human behaviour.
Western society such as it is in 2014 is still all about what the Money wants. Technology has given the Money a much longer and subtler arm than ever before but through all the smoke and mirrors it is still the Money doing what the Money wants.
Just because this is the way it is and the way it has always been doesn't mean we need to accept that this is the way it will always be. No person should be above the law and no goddamned bank balance should be capable of buying 'OJ Justice' for anyone. For us to collectively accept anything less is to allow the rot from the head to spread down the body.
We *must* demand better. The alternative is the death of our species for the sole benefit of the few wealthy elite who wouldn't live very long without the rest of us around to look after them anyway.
If that's our fate then so be it but it seems a damn shame to take so much of the ecosystem with us.
A growing number of those nuclear powers are either unstable, hostile, or both, towards the US and the West. Iran is probably next on the list to have that capability.
Indeed, Iran have been working at it long enough. I'm mildly surprised they don't already have sufficient weapons-grade material to conduct at least one small test.
I also wonder how much of the lovely Abdul Qadeer Khan's work has filtered out undetected to the dark corners of the globe. If you've time and haven't seen this before, the BBC's Nuclear Secrets doco is worth at least a cursory look (although watching it all is recommended). I was stunned by this story and am amazed that I hadn't heard of it before: Wikipedia summary and YouTube link.
Great post! I hope someone with points mods you up. We absolutely need to maintain rigorous objectivity if we're to address some of the big issues of our times; when the ranting volume goes up on hot-button issues it drowns out reason and eventually drives off the rational parties in the debate. Some even view this as a kind of victory, which is somewhat counter-productive (to put it mildly).
not only to mitigate against the risk of global worming
I have to confess to some nervousness at the prospect of this new threat! :-p
Thanks for the interesting reply and apologies for my delayed response.
You claim that we know what the deposition of CO2 does to the planet. No, that is precisely what is in dispute and why this author published this study. [snip]
Proxies might be well understood and they might be the best method that can be used, but that doesn't make them accurate, nor does that make the use of them good science
Well, I'm certainly open to being proven wrong. I've no desire to place any burden of proof other than where it belongs or play any silly games in an attempt to hide my ignorance, so I'm going to concede to you at this time.
I was under the impression that CO2-influenced greenhouse effects were pretty well understood and that the proxies we're discussing (such as tree rings, ice cores, etc.) are usefully accurate over very long periods
Your rational approach to the topic suggests to me that I ought to look further into any controversy over the efficacy of these proxies and the levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Whilst a ranty argument is always on the cards with this subject, I appreciate the opportunity you provided for a sensible conversation on the matter and thank you for the prompt that will hopefully see me slightly more educated by the time I'm done. :)
We're back to where we were
Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with your post I'm still in shock at seeing the above (grammatically correct) sentence on slashdot, apostrophes and all! =)
Let's suppose that you're right, and it can be ascertained what the CO2 levels were 500 years ago. How, pray tell, are you going to get the temperature data?
OK, I'm not an expert but my understanding is that prior to 1850 we must rely upon proxies for temperature data, which I know you're not happy with (see below). I also agree with your supposition that a conventional bulb thermometer probably isn't the most accurate device with which to record temperature.
All of this is beside my point which is that we've vastly more carbon dioxide in our atmosphere now than in all of our history on Earth as Homo Sapiens Sapiens. We know what greenhouse gases do to the climate and we know there's a degree of time-lag between cause and effect. Whilst I agree that getting accurate temp measurements is important, when we have such clear readings for CO2 levels your argument sounds like you don't believe Rome burned down because nobody recorded the name of the tune Nero was playing on his fiddle at the time. Ugh, it's late and my metaphor-fu is weak right now.
I don't need to provide you any competing data. This author relies upon the growth of tree rings and depositions of sediment to infer what temperatures were. You show me how his methods of gathering data are reliable, and perhaps I'll be persuaded by you.
As mentioned before we must rely on proxies as we were obviously not present millions of years in the past to record the actual temperature. If you have a problem with this method of analysis you may well be right but you're going to need to do better than 'I feel it's unreliable' to convince me there's a real issue. I asked for facts in my last post and you tell me you don't need to provide any - there's precious little room for debate if you won't enumerate your concerns.
You employ a classic trick of shifting the burden of proof.
I'm sorry you feel I am engaging in tricks or subterfuge to debate you, I thought I was just pursuing your line of discussion, honestly. I've no agenda besides a desire for the truth, however pretty or ugly.
The burden of proof is on the author of the study, not upon me to prove him wrong. He must persuade his audience, not the other way around.
Except that it is you yourself who is making extraordinary claims, as proxies are a well understood and commonly-employed scientific tool for measurement. What evidence do you have that these proxies are flawed and unsuitable for use in the models we're discussing?