Well, I really hope you are right, but I just do not see it. Especially geo-engineering is basically a hype. The human race cannot do tech on the scale needed.
Indeed. When first made, the climate change claims were extraordinary claims and hence needed extraordinary proof. That proof has been supplied 2...3 decades ago and by now the claim that climate change is not real or nor man-made is the extraordinary claim. Hence the claim that it is not real needs extraordinary proof today. What the deniers have is "I don't believe it".
If this was something not very relevant, I would call the behavior of the deniers instructive and a good example of how not to do it. Unfortunately, what they do is destructive in the extreme and on the level of the whole species. And they provide an "alternative" for those that are undecided, but do not want to face what climate change reduction would actually need to have them do. Hence effective measures get delayed and reduced, which is fatal. My current prediction is 4C (end of the human race) or more. And there is not much time left to prevent that.
Well, it has gotten rather complex in most areas. But scientists can still judge general merit of well-established facts on other fields with reasonable accuracy. So unless most scientists get indoctrinated in some consistent way (if so, they missed me and some friends of mine), you can check what scientists with no bone in a specific field say about its results.
Strongly advising hard real-world changes is one of the ways to not get funding for your research
Good god. How can you write that with a straight face?
Simple: I actually know how the process works, from both sides. If you propose to "rock the boat", you probably will have to fund things yourself. Research funding is typically only granted for incremental things that assure results.
But I will stop answering you now. Your perception of your own level of insight and your actual level of insight is grossly out of alignment, making you immune to facts. Here is the research result that explains this (although you probably do not have what it takes to understand it): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...–Kruger_effect
Sc 1.: That is a political statement, not a scientific one. A scientific statement cannot make absolute predictions. And there will be a basis of facts and a chain of reasoning. And before that statement is uses as a well-established base of further study or to recommend actions, it will need and get independent verification. If it is an extraordinary claim, it will need extraordinary verification. (Climate Science has that by now and had it for a while.) After all that, it becomes sound Science and something smart people will depend on.
The problem here is that neither your Sc. 1 or your Sc 2. is Science. The root-cause is likely that you do not understand how the scientific process actually works.
So you think what will get human civilization ended is the inability of most people to distinguish Science from Religion? Would not surprise me in the least.
You are fatally wrong. I do know how scientific funding works. Strongly advising hard real-world changes is one of the ways to not get funding for your research. Why do you think climate scientists have been so tame when the models did reliably predict the catastrophe to come about 30 years ago? Simple: They did not want their funding to dry up and did hope the human race would realize how bad things are without them pushing. They have now realized that the human race is far too stupid for that and have started pushing _despite_ the negative effects on their funding, because of pure desperation.
As to the past measurements, why on earth do you think measuring temperatures requires satellites of all things? What these older records use is thermometers and records on paper. What then needs to be adjusted (and the adjustments are entirely legitimate) is the extrapolations of the localized measurements.
How anybody at this time can still think this whole thing is not real and not very dire is beyond me. People like you will probably deny there is a problem while in the process of dying from its effects.
Well, those instances of the human race that do not prioritize species survival, will not survive. But apparently that is too hard to grasp because it is quite a while in the future. Bust thanks for illustrating the fundamental nearsightedness of most people. Also, Science is not Religion. One is for people with working minds, the other is for the rest.
Oh, yes. Of course, those with hunger for power learn early that they need to be able to pretend to have leadership qualities.
So while there certainly are people among us who would be great leaders, even though they would likely have to be forced into it, we have no process identifying them and for keeping that selection process non-corrupted. If we had that, we could finally get good leadership. But we do not. Hence any form of authoritarianism will have somebody or some clique on top that is really bad. And that means the only think working to some degree is a system of checks and balances and limited power for any one individual.
And a question: Why are you all posting as ACs? Is the fear of the secret police already so great among you? People self-censoring is a very, very bad sign and not even using a pseudonym is self-censorship.
... the way the Chinese are taking the concept of an orwellian state further to unseen depths on a biweekly basis, is it not?
Others are doing it as well. Read the Snowden stuff for examples. The only difference is that the Chinese are doing it openly. In some twisted sense that makes it more honorable. The world is really going to hell.
Ah, yes, the myth of the "noble leader". One of the main ways authoritarians justify their deep desire to dominate everybody and to force everybody to live like them. Here is news for you: It is not true. Such leaders do not exist or rather the people that could be such leaders have no desire at all to be leaders. Hence leaders self-select for being non-noble leaders. The thing authoritarianism then adds is a lack of checks and balances.
In other words: People like you are part of the problem. Sorry.
Well, yes. The money people need to be able to live has indeed to come from somewhere. And when there is no jobs, an UBI is currently the only available solution. Nobody that really understands the idea thinks this is "funding leisure". What it is is an emergency measure designed to keep society functioning when a majority of all jobs vanish.
Do you have any better idea for that scenario? And do not give me "the jobs will not vanish". That is just a tired old lie.
More than one. Apparently about 30% of US citizens find authoritarianism pretty cool if it is presented right to them. Explains a lot. Not that the rest of the world is much better. Dark times.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I really hope you are right, but I just do not see it. Especially geo-engineering is basically a hype. The human race cannot do tech on the scale needed.
You simply do not make them. A sale is something you have to win, not something you can take for granted.
It is. There are a lot of severe problems with China, but this is not one of them. This is also not the act of a technologically inferior nation.
Well, autonomous driving may be real and fix it. If I get run over, I do not have to deal with this crap anymore!
I am really tired of everything new being broken. We do know how to do this better. Why are these severe mistakes still being made?
Indeed. When first made, the climate change claims were extraordinary claims and hence needed extraordinary proof. That proof has been supplied 2...3 decades ago and by now the claim that climate change is not real or nor man-made is the extraordinary claim. Hence the claim that it is not real needs extraordinary proof today. What the deniers have is "I don't believe it".
If this was something not very relevant, I would call the behavior of the deniers instructive and a good example of how not to do it. Unfortunately, what they do is destructive in the extreme and on the level of the whole species. And they provide an "alternative" for those that are undecided, but do not want to face what climate change reduction would actually need to have them do. Hence effective measures get delayed and reduced, which is fatal. My current prediction is 4C (end of the human race) or more. And there is not much time left to prevent that.
Unfortunately, you have a point.
Well, it has gotten rather complex in most areas. But scientists can still judge general merit of well-established facts on other fields with reasonable accuracy. So unless most scientists get indoctrinated in some consistent way (if so, they missed me and some friends of mine), you can check what scientists with no bone in a specific field say about its results.
I am talking about climate research. Climate researchers are not bankers.
Good god. How can you write that with a straight face?
Simple: I actually know how the process works, from both sides. If you propose to "rock the boat", you probably will have to fund things yourself. Research funding is typically only granted for incremental things that assure results.
But I will stop answering you now. Your perception of your own level of insight and your actual level of insight is grossly out of alignment, making you immune to facts. Here is the research result that explains this (although you probably do not have what it takes to understand it): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...–Kruger_effect
Sc 1.: That is a political statement, not a scientific one. A scientific statement cannot make absolute predictions. And there will be a basis of facts and a chain of reasoning. And before that statement is uses as a well-established base of further study or to recommend actions, it will need and get independent verification. If it is an extraordinary claim, it will need extraordinary verification. (Climate Science has that by now and had it for a while.) After all that, it becomes sound Science and something smart people will depend on.
The problem here is that neither your Sc. 1 or your Sc 2. is Science. The root-cause is likely that you do not understand how the scientific process actually works.
You are incapable of distinguishing Science from non-science. Explains a lot.
So you think what will get human civilization ended is the inability of most people to distinguish Science from Religion? Would not surprise me in the least.
You are fatally wrong. I do know how scientific funding works. Strongly advising hard real-world changes is one of the ways to not get funding for your research. Why do you think climate scientists have been so tame when the models did reliably predict the catastrophe to come about 30 years ago? Simple: They did not want their funding to dry up and did hope the human race would realize how bad things are without them pushing. They have now realized that the human race is far too stupid for that and have started pushing _despite_ the negative effects on their funding, because of pure desperation.
As to the past measurements, why on earth do you think measuring temperatures requires satellites of all things? What these older records use is thermometers and records on paper. What then needs to be adjusted (and the adjustments are entirely legitimate) is the extrapolations of the localized measurements.
How anybody at this time can still think this whole thing is not real and not very dire is beyond me. People like you will probably deny there is a problem while in the process of dying from its effects.
Well, those instances of the human race that do not prioritize species survival, will not survive. But apparently that is too hard to grasp because it is quite a while in the future. Bust thanks for illustrating the fundamental nearsightedness of most people. Also, Science is not Religion. One is for people with working minds, the other is for the rest.
Oh, yes. Of course, those with hunger for power learn early that they need to be able to pretend to have leadership qualities.
So while there certainly are people among us who would be great leaders, even though they would likely have to be forced into it, we have no process identifying them and for keeping that selection process non-corrupted. If we had that, we could finally get good leadership. But we do not. Hence any form of authoritarianism will have somebody or some clique on top that is really bad. And that means the only think working to some degree is a system of checks and balances and limited power for any one individual.
And a question: Why are you all posting as ACs? Is the fear of the secret police already so great among you? People self-censoring is a very, very bad sign and not even using a pseudonym is self-censorship.
Interesting. I was not aware of the color-angle.
Wow, you do have a problem. Impressive.
You have a point regarding the productivity increases. Where have they gone indeed.
However it is not the "plebs" who will need the UBI. It is mostly middle-class jobs that will vanish without replacement.
Since your thinking is defective, why should I care?
... the way the Chinese are taking the concept of an orwellian state further to unseen depths on a biweekly basis, is it not?
Others are doing it as well. Read the Snowden stuff for examples. The only difference is that the Chinese are doing it openly. In some twisted sense that makes it more honorable. The world is really going to hell.
Ah, yes, the myth of the "noble leader". One of the main ways authoritarians justify their deep desire to dominate everybody and to force everybody to live like them. Here is news for you: It is not true. Such leaders do not exist or rather the people that could be such leaders have no desire at all to be leaders. Hence leaders self-select for being non-noble leaders. The thing authoritarianism then adds is a lack of checks and balances.
In other words: People like you are part of the problem. Sorry.
Well, yes. The money people need to be able to live has indeed to come from somewhere. And when there is no jobs, an UBI is currently the only available solution. Nobody that really understands the idea thinks this is "funding leisure". What it is is an emergency measure designed to keep society functioning when a majority of all jobs vanish.
Do you have any better idea for that scenario? And do not give me "the jobs will not vanish". That is just a tired old lie.
More than one. Apparently about 30% of US citizens find authoritarianism pretty cool if it is presented right to them. Explains a lot. Not that the rest of the world is much better. Dark times.
Quite a few of dirty young men and women of all ages like this too. Somebody does enable these "dirty old men", you know.