This is a very interesting issue to me, and I haven't totally made up my mind, one way or the other. Firstly, I think we can all agree that the principal of free speech - overall - is of vital importance to any democracy. The public needs information to properly make decisions; they need to be able to hear all sides of an issue.
In this particular bill, I see both sides having a credible argument in actually protecting the principal of free speech. On one hand, we have the anti-registration forces who say that registration removes anonymity and therefore puts pressures the individual to perhaps 'be a little more careful with what they say'. On the other side, the pro-registration forces counter with the issue of the public right to know if a speaker is being funded in their opinions. At first glance, you may ask what the public right to know has to do with freedom of speech. Well, it seems to me - and I'm sure someone out there will take issue with this - that by receiving payment for speaking your position, allows some voices to speak louder than others solely on the basis of resources. (By some voices, I mean whomever may be writing the cheque.) By enabling a louder voice, others are dampened.
As I sit here and think about this, I'm starting to solidify my position: I think the idea behind this bill is a good one, but (judging from previous posts) the implementation was a little off. I think I would have no problem supporting a tightly written bill, requiring large scale campaigns to disclose who they are paying to spread their message, although I would certainly not support a bill which block anyone's right to say whatever they wished.
A good point, I assume this is why the ballots are distroyed soon after both sides accept the result. On the other hand, surely their must be something that can be done, otherwise, there is very little deterent against this kind of behaviour.
The biggest problem in a case like this is the time it takes to respond. In the time it's going to take this to wind its way through the legal system, multiple elections are going to have come and gone. If the goal really was to commit election fraud, their candidate would have been in office for (potentially) multiple terms before anything is done - assuming that anything would be done anyway!
That's the whole point: it's not that they had some mountains of evidence to support the old "science", it's that it was a system that worked on _dogma_ instead of evidence. They had their set of dogmas and stuff that was considered "obvious" and "common sense", and the whole "science" was inferring stuff from those, not trying to disprove or refine them. The whole point is that the old establishment wasn't actually science, and didn't use (and in fact thoroughly distrusted and rejected) what we nowadays call the scientific method. They didn't even look at the evidence there, they just went by some dogmas like that there _must_ be 7 planets, and no amount of evidence could possibly change their mind. If you say anything else than the official dogma, you're obviously wrong and deluded, and the dogma is still obviously still right.
No, the whole point is that the bulk of the available evidence at the time was not in Galileo's favor. He choose to ignore that and go with his gut. When the evidence did arrive, Galileo was vindicated. Now, I do fully grant you that science, centuries ago, looked a little different than it does now, but that doesn't change the fact that it was still based on a foundation of what counts as credible.
Nice twisting words around, but, no. Just, no. _Noone_ in science and certainly _no_ theory are beyond skepticism or trying to disprove. If Einstein came back from the dead with some great new theory, he too would have to show his evidence and have people trying to poke holes in it, or try to fit a different theory around them. That's how science works.
And again, it's a "battle" of data and theories, not a battle of who's got the bigger name on their side. We quote Einstein's _theories_ because there is a mountain of evidence that they're, in as much as much as we can measure, true. _Not_ because Einstein himself is such a great authority figure that noone is worthy of disaggreeing with him. And we have people trying to verify -- and thus potentially disprove -- theories all the time, without anyone proposing to de-certify them because they dare disaggree with the great Einstein. E.g., there have been satellites launched just to measure (and maybe disprove) his predicted space curvature, using the Hubble telescope to measure gravitational lensing (and potentially disprove it), etc. Trying to find the data to prove someone, even such a big authority figure as Einstein, wrong is what scientists _do_.
Do you understand what you read, 'cause I'm not sure why we have an argument here. You say Einstein would have to defend any theory he comes up with today the same as any other physicist, the scientific community would afford him no special credibility because of his name. I fully agree, and that is exactly what I was saying, the only thing in science that can stand on their own are pure_imperical_observations. On the other hand you still don't seem to understand that a weather person editorializing on the news is not scientific dissention. It would have no bearing on the scientific community. What it might have is a bearing on PUBLIC OPINION and thereby PUBLIC POLICY, but that's not how real scientists argues is it? Yes, Einstein would have to defend his theory, but he would not do it on the 6 O'clock news. He would do it WITHIN the scientific community.
And with that kind of comparison, and implying that what works in a dogma-based system (religion) is perfectly normal for science, or that you can make science by consensus like it's some political elections, you just told me in one fell swoop that you don't have any clue about how science works either. Wake me up when you do, because in the meantime I do believe that this whole talk is pointless.
Finally we arrive at the crux of this matter. I implore you, if you read nothing else in this post, for the love of God, Read this:
We are NOT speaking of muzzling scientific dissent and discussion WITHIN the scientific community. T
Wow, you are one very confused individual. You rail against decertifying 'scientific professionals' who refuse to conduct themselves in a scientific way. Then you confuse the process of scientific Peer Review with editorializing, (Someone stating their own opinion, paid or otherwise, through a one way medium is about as far from scientific discussion as you can get. Sheesh! talk about undermining the peer review process!)
Although, you are right that science can't work in a closed dogmatic environment; unless, of course, that closed dogmatic system is one based only on evidence, observation, and the scientific method. Do you understand that scientific opinions' held by scientists are dependent on evidence and those opinions change when and if new evidence is presented? This means that the scientific consensus surrounding climate change would dissapear tomorrow, if scientific evidence was uncovered. Scientific decision making is done in much the same way that a Judge makes a legal ruling on the basis of law rather than personal opinion, Scientific peer-review is done on the basis of imperical evidence.
Next, you glibly reference Galileo who has come to represent the 'Scientific David' vs. the 'religiously dogmatic Goliath'. If you care to take a look in the history books, you might be a little surprised to find out that the Church had historically been a huge supporter of science; The thinking being that because God created the universe then by learning about the natural world one could begin to understand Gods divine plan. Obviously back in those days instrumentation was not of the quality that we have today. Owing to this substandard equipment and observation, all the evidence more closely matched the churches version. Galileo didn't accept this and it was in fact he who dogmatically pursued his vision. Frankly, if it wasn't for the fact that the process of science eventually proved him right, he would be a just another in a long line of daft old coots.
Next you claim that science, unlike religion, has no 'authority figures'; well, that's not exactly true. Science does have 'authority figures' but they are more often refered to as evidence. So if the climate change skeptics out there have any 'authority figures' to present, I'd like to see them.
Finally, you finish off with a flurry of inflammatory language. You refer to a virtual consensus based on fact and evidence as 'dogma'; You again confuse science and scientific debate with opinion and one-way editorializing, finally you claim that de-certifying someone as scientific for conducting themselves in an un-scientific way as being a bad thing. Do you seriously think that if a priest got up in front of the congregation and started saying that God did not exist and Jesus was just a man that the church would be wrong to excommunicate him? No one here is claiming that the meteorologist should not be able to say whatever the hell he wants on national TV, but if he is going to present that opinion as science, he had better damn well make sure that he mentions exactly how much scientific evidence supports that opinion.
Nobody is outlawing dissent here. Dissent is welcomed and debated hotly within the scientific community, provided that it occurs in a scientific way. The problem here is that television is hardly a scientific medium since it's a one-way medium; all you have is one person pushing an opinion; that's the opposite of debate. Frankly, I'm a little supprised that all the global warming skeptics aren't supporting this motion since they are forever calling for BOTH SIDES OF AN ARGUMENT TO BE PRESENTED. (although that presumes that a scientific argument actually exists regarding climate change.)
No scientific discussion can be made without questioning theories. Censorship is no solution. How is a weather person broadcasting their personal -perhaps paid- opinions through a one-way medium scientific discussion?
I'm a little down on the 'hydrogen economy' for all the obvious reasons that have been presented here, and in the past. However, if Ford is actually serious about hydrogen over electric, my opinion is that there best bet would be a package where car and solar hydrogen generator sold as a together from the dealership. This would be much like the tiny toy hydrogen car that a Chinese company sold http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/hracer-toy- hydrogen-car-174962.php
hopefully, you don't need to travel more than the 25 miles between time you can charge your car from the grid more than once or twice a week. Meanwhile, your little solar station can sit there, perfectly aligned with the sun for max efficiency, generating hydrogen all week long, might take a few days to generate a tankfull, but hopefully you don't need to make the long trips more than once or twice a week. This should help with the 'no infrastructure problem' as well as a potential source for all those other fuel cell powered gizmos http://www.cnet.com/4831-11405_1-6412811.html that are just itching to get onto the market.
I did some last minute rearanging and it appears I broke the continuity of my reply. For the record, when I refer to premise one being on solid ground, I'm refering to the premise that is now at the bottom of the reply. My apologies.
Reading over most of the comments it appears that most people seem to think that Gates is perfectly justified to invest wherever he wants with no real consideration of the companies he invests in.
Most of the supporting comments seem to fall into these categories:
1. It's too difficult to judge how socially responsible a company is.
2. A socially responsible company is a relative term.
3. If Gates didn't invest in a company for moral reasons, it wouldn't matter because someone else would. Thereby depriving his charity of funds while doing nothing to stop an abuse.
First off; we must agree that companies can have a impact on the well being of the countries and communities they operate in, be it positive or negative. I think it's pretty obvious that they can; extent is a trickier issue. Regardless, I think premise #1 is on some solid footing. If any one seeks to differ, I'm all ears.
So how difficult is it to determine which companies are good and which are bad? Some people have suggested that it is impossibly hard. I would argue that's false. Their is no lack of investment funds that one can access which do exactly this. There are Christian funds with invest in a 'Christian friendly way'. There are ethical funds which do exactly what Gates suggests is too hard and only invest in an ethical way! Heck, there are even 'vice funds' which focus exclusively on investing in those areas that others maybe don't want to, like Tobacco.
But how can we tell if the final product of a companies activities are positive or negative? What if we don't agree on what's even a good practice? Well that is certainly tricky but not impossible to deal with. Most companies that are doing 'evil' can be ruled out without too much trouble. Companies that fall at this extreme end are guilty of excessive pollution, labour/human rights abuses, or dealing with those we hold as intolerable (eg. terrorist organizations). But what about those companies that can't be pegged so easily, like a company seeking to privatize water or operate a nuclear plant? In cases like this it is incumbent on Gates to make a principled stand, one way or the other, based on a solid rational of what he believes is best overall. With the stated goals of this charity, the most hypocritical thing that Gates could do is to ignore this issue.
But does it matter? How can investment make a difference anyway, won't someone else step up and invest? Maybe, but that doesn't mean it can't have an effect. By shrinking the pool of willing investment you're giving the remaining investment more value to the company thereby making it more expensive to that company. I offer 'vice finds' as an example; They invest exclusively in those areas that others find distasteful (like tobacco or gambling) and expect a premium in return. Anytime you put financial pressure on a company, it's pressure to change the way it operates. On the other side of the coin, you are then investing in companies that are making an effort. This increases their competitiveness by comparison.
I'm flabbergasted that Gates is actively ignoring this aspect. This could be the single greatest contribution he makes to the world. Instead he wants to focus solely on the symptoms (illiteracy, disease) when the initial causes are largely ignored. For the record I see the issue this way:
1. Companies operations can have an impact on the well being of the areas they operate in.
2. Companies require investment/capital to operate.
Therefore, we can impact a companies ability to operate - and by extension, conditions in the areas they operate - by selectively investing our money towards good corporate practice and away from bad.
As a personal opinion, let me tell you why it may be 'the first of it's kind', even if all it's features exist in other devices. I resist gadgets as long as I can, even if they are a gift. Why? because each and every one has a learning curve and I don't feel like wasting my time on something that may be obsolete in 6 months. Case in point: the Palm; I have a friend who bought one a few years back when they were spanky new and he demonstrated it to me. He had to learn a new way to write the English language! He seemed to like it but for me, NO WAY! A device is there to make my life better and if I have to invest more than 2-3 minutes figuring out how to use it, forget it; I don't want it/I don't need it. I will not consider a 'smart phone' because all I can picture is a monumental pain-in-the-ass.
Now, along comes Apple and I get excited because I imagine my will being seamlessly translated into action, much like if it were an appendage to my body! (a little extreme, but you get the picture) If Jobs can make a phone like this then it's revolutionary and this is why Apple's competitors should be scared: While others offer 'features', Apple offers 'features you can use'.
You've made some interesting assertions but I would take issue with a few.
Firstly, you seem to think that we cannot empty the oceans and exploit all the species if we can't even catalogue them first. Unfortunately drag nets do not discriminate between identified and unidentified species, nor do they leave much room for the natural selection you so obviously worship since they take everything. Another example would be the rainforests; do we know all the life forms that live in such a rich ecosystem? Does this mean that we can't destroy it?
You seem angry at the leftist that want everyone to be equal. Well, I'm with you, hard work and ingenuity should be rewarded, but why not let everyone start from an equal footing? Seriously, do you really believe that the Paris Hiltons of the world are the most fit to survive? Social Darwinism is a dead end, just ask Hitler.
Finally consumerism; you do make a good point that we must consume to survive, but that's not where our current problems stem from. Our current problems are a result of WASTEFULL CONSUMPTION. Do we really need blemish free, uniform produce at our local supermarkets? Do we really need all that gaudy oversized packaging around the trinkets that we buy? Does each of us really need an SUV, heck how many of us really even need to own a car?
I come from Canada and we have yet to fully convert to the metric system; the Mulroney government decided that funding the metric conversion initiative begun by the previous Liberal government was a waste of money and they stopped pushing the issue... but I digress.
Apparently the attempted conversion was disliked by a number of people. My favorite story was about the some of the old people. Somehow they got it into their heads that gasoline sold by the litre was inferior, quality wise, that if the same gasoline was sold by the (imperial) gallon. Yes, these poor individuals went around the country cautioning the masses against putting this 'litre of gasoline' in their cars!
WHAT HAS MORE IMPACT ON CLIMATE, OUR ACTIVITIES THAT PALE IN COMPARISON TO A SINGLE VOLCANIC ERUPTION, OR THAT MONSTROUS HYDROGEN BOMB WE CALL THE SUN THAT SUPPLIES ALL THE ENERGY THAT THE EARTH RECIEVES?
The answer is... non of the above! The correct answer should be our activities IN ADDITION TO all these other natural phenomena.
FYI: people moved more earth last year than all the wind and water erosion! Humans have become a force of nature, however we are slightly more dependent on our environment than wind or water or a volcano, therefore we should pay attention to what we're doing! On the other hand, maybe we should just blunder around oblivious to our mess. I mean, in the long run, the planet is probably better off without us anyway.
But the point is that a media relations blitz is not scientific discussion, in fact it is the opposite. In this case it appears to be an organized attempt to undermine the scientific system that's producing understandings that some don't like. Within the scientific community debate happens all the time and is ongoing as new evidence is presented, however, at the end of the day when this evidence leads to only one conclusion a consensus is formed. This is a consensus that was arrived at through a well defined system know as the scientific method. Because of the use of this well understood and well defined method, a level of reliance can be placed on the conclusion. In the case of global warming that consensus is virtually unanimous because of the evidence; in fact there is currently no scientific evidence to the contrary! If such evidence becomes available then it will be examined through the same SCIENTIFIC debate that formed the consensus in the first place.
Quite frankly, the most offensive part of this whole debacle is not that some people don't agree with the scientific consensus, but that they attack science itself. When the BS gets called they cry foul; Claim they are being stifled for holding a different opinion.
Remember that YOUR OPINION and the SCIENFIC CONSENSUS are NOT EQUAL and should not be presented as such. Your assertion that "those who are right invite discussion because they know their ideas are right..." in the context of this public debate shockingly naive. Discussion is always invited in the scientific community, provided that the discussion is scientific. What is not acceptable are those who try an 'end run' around the evidence and the method.
Precisely, but we must add one little caveat; the UCS doesn't want public debate on the scientific consensus. This is because the scientific consensus was arrived at through the scientific method, and is dependent on the available evidence. There is no room for public debate, if you discover that the scientific consensus is incorrect then you must provide scientifically valid evidence. Should this evidence be scientifically verified then the consensus must be reevaluated.
On a personal note: The thing that confuses me is why so many people are so willing to be used as tools in a disinformation campaign.
As a final note: shame on all those moderators who keep modding comments 'insightful' simply because they question global warming. Have you read the moderator guidelines?
...as an armed public is the only way to have any level of resistance if a government becomes truly oppressive. I know that some of you will say that marching and demonstrating is one way that does not require an armed resistance. Yea, well, unarmed crowds really don't do so well against a M16 equipped military controlled by the government (need examples? see China, 1989).
Gandhi might beg to differ...
No, I don't think it makes too much sense to have armed individuals running around in a democratic society under the justification that the government might become oppressive. Frankly, you and your buddies with your M-16 pop guns have got no chance against the modern war machine. Then again, what do I know, I'm not American.
It seems to me that if you're really concerned with the future of your country why don't you ditch the firing range, join that NGO, get into the public service, or go get that law degree?
How can this development be most effectively monetized? To my way of thinking that would be as a terminator sequence to protect someone's intellectual property. Think about it, if I was a seed company or any biotech firm I and everyone was using my stuff how can I enforce payment? If someone doesn't pay the licensing fee, I just turn it off. Better yet, if I can sneak my technology into the wild then I can demand payment from those with no intention of using my patented tech, assuming a sufficient spread, I could turn off large portions of anyone's crops. Make a few examples of farmers and the rest will have to fall in line because they don't want to take a chance that their contaminated too! Alternately, they could make their product dependent on a certain other product they sell to survive, the possibilities are endless.
This is the danger I see, mainly 'cause it's already happening, albeit to a lesser extent. The trick is just get it legalized with a whole bunch of legitimate, useful applications like tagging.
I'm not sure why the parent was modded insightful, funny would be pushing it... It's logic seems to be on the flawed side, setting up a situation like this:
1. Something of a large magnitude happened thirty years ago when global climate change wasn't really an issue.
2. Something of a large magnitude happened recently.
Therefore, because things of a large magnitude have happen in the past uninfluenced by climate change, climate change is not playing a role in current events of large magnitude.
Now I'm no expert but I don't see how this conclusion actually follows.
To answer the question of what happend thirty years ago; Simply a large chunk of ice fell into the ocean. Why, I don't know. Maybe it grew too large to support itself. The fact is that climate change impacts the frequency and magnitude of natural events. The last time a comparable event occurred was 30 years ago, and who knows when the one before that occurred. But I would be willing to bet money that the next one, and the one after that, are not 30 years away.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a very interesting issue to me, and I haven't totally made up my mind, one way or the other. Firstly, I think we can all agree that the principal of free speech - overall - is of vital importance to any democracy. The public needs information to properly make decisions; they need to be able to hear all sides of an issue.
In this particular bill, I see both sides having a credible argument in actually protecting the principal of free speech. On one hand, we have the anti-registration forces who say that registration removes anonymity and therefore puts pressures the individual to perhaps 'be a little more careful with what they say'. On the other side, the pro-registration forces counter with the issue of the public right to know if a speaker is being funded in their opinions. At first glance, you may ask what the public right to know has to do with freedom of speech. Well, it seems to me - and I'm sure someone out there will take issue with this - that by receiving payment for speaking your position, allows some voices to speak louder than others solely on the basis of resources. (By some voices, I mean whomever may be writing the cheque.) By enabling a louder voice, others are dampened.
As I sit here and think about this, I'm starting to solidify my position: I think the idea behind this bill is a good one, but (judging from previous posts) the implementation was a little off. I think I would have no problem supporting a tightly written bill, requiring large scale campaigns to disclose who they are paying to spread their message, although I would certainly not support a bill which block anyone's right to say whatever they wished.
S.
A good point, I assume this is why the ballots are distroyed soon after both sides accept the result. On the other hand, surely their must be something that can be done, otherwise, there is very little deterent against this kind of behaviour.
The biggest problem in a case like this is the time it takes to respond. In the time it's going to take this to wind its way through the legal system, multiple elections are going to have come and gone. If the goal really was to commit election fraud, their candidate would have been in office for (potentially) multiple terms before anything is done - assuming that anything would be done anyway!
That's the whole point: it's not that they had some mountains of evidence to support the old "science", it's that it was a system that worked on _dogma_ instead of evidence. They had their set of dogmas and stuff that was considered "obvious" and "common sense", and the whole "science" was inferring stuff from those, not trying to disprove or refine them. The whole point is that the old establishment wasn't actually science, and didn't use (and in fact thoroughly distrusted and rejected) what we nowadays call the scientific method. They didn't even look at the evidence there, they just went by some dogmas like that there _must_ be 7 planets, and no amount of evidence could possibly change their mind. If you say anything else than the official dogma, you're obviously wrong and deluded, and the dogma is still obviously still right.
No, the whole point is that the bulk of the available evidence at the time was not in Galileo's favor. He choose to ignore that and go with his gut. When the evidence did arrive, Galileo was vindicated. Now, I do fully grant you that science, centuries ago, looked a little different than it does now, but that doesn't change the fact that it was still based on a foundation of what counts as credible.
Nice twisting words around, but, no. Just, no. _Noone_ in science and certainly _no_ theory are beyond skepticism or trying to disprove. If Einstein came back from the dead with some great new theory, he too would have to show his evidence and have people trying to poke holes in it, or try to fit a different theory around them. That's how science works. And again, it's a "battle" of data and theories, not a battle of who's got the bigger name on their side. We quote Einstein's _theories_ because there is a mountain of evidence that they're, in as much as much as we can measure, true. _Not_ because Einstein himself is such a great authority figure that noone is worthy of disaggreeing with him. And we have people trying to verify -- and thus potentially disprove -- theories all the time, without anyone proposing to de-certify them because they dare disaggree with the great Einstein. E.g., there have been satellites launched just to measure (and maybe disprove) his predicted space curvature, using the Hubble telescope to measure gravitational lensing (and potentially disprove it), etc. Trying to find the data to prove someone, even such a big authority figure as Einstein, wrong is what scientists _do_.
Do you understand what you read, 'cause I'm not sure why we have an argument here. You say Einstein would have to defend any theory he comes up with today the same as any other physicist, the scientific community would afford him no special credibility because of his name. I fully agree, and that is exactly what I was saying, the only thing in science that can stand on their own are pure_imperical_observations. On the other hand you still don't seem to understand that a weather person editorializing on the news is not scientific dissention. It would have no bearing on the scientific community. What it might have is a bearing on PUBLIC OPINION and thereby PUBLIC POLICY, but that's not how real scientists argues is it? Yes, Einstein would have to defend his theory, but he would not do it on the 6 O'clock news. He would do it WITHIN the scientific community.
And with that kind of comparison, and implying that what works in a dogma-based system (religion) is perfectly normal for science, or that you can make science by consensus like it's some political elections, you just told me in one fell swoop that you don't have any clue about how science works either. Wake me up when you do, because in the meantime I do believe that this whole talk is pointless.
Finally we arrive at the crux of this matter. I implore you, if you read nothing else in this post, for the love of God, Read this:
We are NOT speaking of muzzling scientific dissent and discussion WITHIN the scientific community. T
Wow, you are one very confused individual. You rail against decertifying 'scientific professionals' who refuse to conduct themselves in a scientific way. Then you confuse the process of scientific Peer Review with editorializing, (Someone stating their own opinion, paid or otherwise, through a one way medium is about as far from scientific discussion as you can get. Sheesh! talk about undermining the peer review process!)
Although, you are right that science can't work in a closed dogmatic environment; unless, of course, that closed dogmatic system is one based only on evidence, observation, and the scientific method. Do you understand that scientific opinions' held by scientists are dependent on evidence and those opinions change when and if new evidence is presented? This means that the scientific consensus surrounding climate change would dissapear tomorrow, if scientific evidence was uncovered. Scientific decision making is done in much the same way that a Judge makes a legal ruling on the basis of law rather than personal opinion, Scientific peer-review is done on the basis of imperical evidence.
Next, you glibly reference Galileo who has come to represent the 'Scientific David' vs. the 'religiously dogmatic Goliath'. If you care to take a look in the history books, you might be a little surprised to find out that the Church had historically been a huge supporter of science; The thinking being that because God created the universe then by learning about the natural world one could begin to understand Gods divine plan. Obviously back in those days instrumentation was not of the quality that we have today. Owing to this substandard equipment and observation, all the evidence more closely matched the churches version. Galileo didn't accept this and it was in fact he who dogmatically pursued his vision. Frankly, if it wasn't for the fact that the process of science eventually proved him right, he would be a just another in a long line of daft old coots.
Next you claim that science, unlike religion, has no 'authority figures'; well, that's not exactly true. Science does have 'authority figures' but they are more often refered to as evidence. So if the climate change skeptics out there have any 'authority figures' to present, I'd like to see them.
Finally, you finish off with a flurry of inflammatory language. You refer to a virtual consensus based on fact and evidence as 'dogma'; You again confuse science and scientific debate with opinion and one-way editorializing, finally you claim that de-certifying someone as scientific for conducting themselves in an un-scientific way as being a bad thing. Do you seriously think that if a priest got up in front of the congregation and started saying that God did not exist and Jesus was just a man that the church would be wrong to excommunicate him? No one here is claiming that the meteorologist should not be able to say whatever the hell he wants on national TV, but if he is going to present that opinion as science, he had better damn well make sure that he mentions exactly how much scientific evidence supports that opinion.
Nobody is outlawing dissent here. Dissent is welcomed and debated hotly within the scientific community, provided that it occurs in a scientific way. The problem here is that television is hardly a scientific medium since it's a one-way medium; all you have is one person pushing an opinion; that's the opposite of debate. Frankly, I'm a little supprised that all the global warming skeptics aren't supporting this motion since they are forever calling for BOTH SIDES OF AN ARGUMENT TO BE PRESENTED. (although that presumes that a scientific argument actually exists regarding climate change.)
I'm a little down on the 'hydrogen economy' for all the obvious reasons that have been presented here, and in the past. However, if Ford is actually serious about hydrogen over electric, my opinion is that there best bet would be a package where car and solar hydrogen generator sold as a together from the dealership. This would be much like the tiny toy hydrogen car that a Chinese company sold- hydrogen-car-174962.php
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/hracer-toy
hopefully, you don't need to travel more than the 25 miles between time you can charge your car from the grid more than once or twice a week. Meanwhile, your little solar station can sit there, perfectly aligned with the sun for max efficiency, generating hydrogen all week long, might take a few days to generate a tankfull, but hopefully you don't need to make the long trips more than once or twice a week. This should help with the 'no infrastructure problem' as well as a potential source for all those other fuel cell powered gizmos http://www.cnet.com/4831-11405_1-6412811.html that are just itching to get onto the market.
S.
Make mine 1/2 a litre please
I did some last minute rearanging and it appears I broke the continuity of my reply. For the record, when I refer to premise one being on solid ground, I'm refering to the premise that is now at the bottom of the reply. My apologies.
Reading over most of the comments it appears that most people seem to think that Gates is perfectly justified to invest wherever he wants with no real consideration of the companies he invests in.
Most of the supporting comments seem to fall into these categories:
1. It's too difficult to judge how socially responsible a company is.
2. A socially responsible company is a relative term.
3. If Gates didn't invest in a company for moral reasons, it wouldn't matter because someone else would. Thereby depriving his charity of funds while doing nothing to stop an abuse.
First off; we must agree that companies can have a impact on the well being of the countries and communities they operate in, be it positive or negative. I think it's pretty obvious that they can; extent is a trickier issue. Regardless, I think premise #1 is on some solid footing. If any one seeks to differ, I'm all ears.
So how difficult is it to determine which companies are good and which are bad? Some people have suggested that it is impossibly hard. I would argue that's false. Their is no lack of investment funds that one can access which do exactly this. There are Christian funds with invest in a 'Christian friendly way'. There are ethical funds which do exactly what Gates suggests is too hard and only invest in an ethical way! Heck, there are even 'vice funds' which focus exclusively on investing in those areas that others maybe don't want to, like Tobacco.
But how can we tell if the final product of a companies activities are positive or negative? What if we don't agree on what's even a good practice? Well that is certainly tricky but not impossible to deal with. Most companies that are doing 'evil' can be ruled out without too much trouble. Companies that fall at this extreme end are guilty of excessive pollution, labour/human rights abuses, or dealing with those we hold as intolerable (eg. terrorist organizations). But what about those companies that can't be pegged so easily, like a company seeking to privatize water or operate a nuclear plant? In cases like this it is incumbent on Gates to make a principled stand, one way or the other, based on a solid rational of what he believes is best overall. With the stated goals of this charity, the most hypocritical thing that Gates could do is to ignore this issue.
But does it matter? How can investment make a difference anyway, won't someone else step up and invest? Maybe, but that doesn't mean it can't have an effect. By shrinking the pool of willing investment you're giving the remaining investment more value to the company thereby making it more expensive to that company. I offer 'vice finds' as an example; They invest exclusively in those areas that others find distasteful (like tobacco or gambling) and expect a premium in return. Anytime you put financial pressure on a company, it's pressure to change the way it operates. On the other side of the coin, you are then investing in companies that are making an effort. This increases their competitiveness by comparison.
I'm flabbergasted that Gates is actively ignoring this aspect. This could be the single greatest contribution he makes to the world. Instead he wants to focus solely on the symptoms (illiteracy, disease) when the initial causes are largely ignored. For the record I see the issue this way:
1. Companies operations can have an impact on the well being of the areas they operate in.
2. Companies require investment/capital to operate.
Therefore, we can impact a companies ability to operate - and by extension, conditions in the areas they operate - by selectively investing our money towards good corporate practice and away from bad.
As a personal opinion, let me tell you why it may be 'the first of it's kind', even if all it's features exist in other devices. I resist gadgets as long as I can, even if they are a gift. Why? because each and every one has a learning curve and I don't feel like wasting my time on something that may be obsolete in 6 months. Case in point: the Palm; I have a friend who bought one a few years back when they were spanky new and he demonstrated it to me. He had to learn a new way to write the English language! He seemed to like it but for me, NO WAY! A device is there to make my life better and if I have to invest more than 2-3 minutes figuring out how to use it, forget it; I don't want it/I don't need it. I will not consider a 'smart phone' because all I can picture is a monumental pain-in-the-ass.
Now, along comes Apple and I get excited because I imagine my will being seamlessly translated into action, much like if it were an appendage to my body! (a little extreme, but you get the picture) If Jobs can make a phone like this then it's revolutionary and this is why Apple's competitors should be scared: While others offer 'features', Apple offers 'features you can use'.
You've made some interesting assertions but I would take issue with a few.
Firstly, you seem to think that we cannot empty the oceans and exploit all the species if we can't even catalogue them first. Unfortunately drag nets do not discriminate between identified and unidentified species, nor do they leave much room for the natural selection you so obviously worship since they take everything. Another example would be the rainforests; do we know all the life forms that live in such a rich ecosystem? Does this mean that we can't destroy it?
You seem angry at the leftist that want everyone to be equal. Well, I'm with you, hard work and ingenuity should be rewarded, but why not let everyone start from an equal footing? Seriously, do you really believe that the Paris Hiltons of the world are the most fit to survive? Social Darwinism is a dead end, just ask Hitler.
Finally consumerism; you do make a good point that we must consume to survive, but that's not where our current problems stem from. Our current problems are a result of WASTEFULL CONSUMPTION. Do we really need blemish free, uniform produce at our local supermarkets? Do we really need all that gaudy oversized packaging around the trinkets that we buy? Does each of us really need an SUV, heck how many of us really even need to own a car?
I come from Canada and we have yet to fully convert to the metric system; the Mulroney government decided that funding the metric conversion initiative begun by the previous Liberal government was a waste of money and they stopped pushing the issue... but I digress.
Apparently the attempted conversion was disliked by a number of people. My favorite story was about the some of the old people. Somehow they got it into their heads that gasoline sold by the litre was inferior, quality wise, that if the same gasoline was sold by the (imperial) gallon. Yes, these poor individuals went around the country cautioning the masses against putting this 'litre of gasoline' in their cars!
Ha ha, Ya, I hear you, but it is the good ones!
Next time you buy a good claw hammer, check the warantee; You may be supprised to see that if you pull a nail with the claws, it voids the warantee!
I also have an axe with a large arrow engraved into the head ensuring that you strike with the sharp side!
The answer is... non of the above! The correct answer should be our activities IN ADDITION TO all these other natural phenomena.
FYI: people moved more earth last year than all the wind and water erosion! Humans have become a force of nature, however we are slightly more dependent on our environment than wind or water or a volcano, therefore we should pay attention to what we're doing! On the other hand, maybe we should just blunder around oblivious to our mess. I mean, in the long run, the planet is probably better off without us anyway.
But the point is that a media relations blitz is not scientific discussion, in fact it is the opposite. In this case it appears to be an organized attempt to undermine the scientific system that's producing understandings that some don't like. Within the scientific community debate happens all the time and is ongoing as new evidence is presented, however, at the end of the day when this evidence leads to only one conclusion a consensus is formed. This is a consensus that was arrived at through a well defined system know as the scientific method. Because of the use of this well understood and well defined method, a level of reliance can be placed on the conclusion. In the case of global warming that consensus is virtually unanimous because of the evidence; in fact there is currently no scientific evidence to the contrary! If such evidence becomes available then it will be examined through the same SCIENTIFIC debate that formed the consensus in the first place.
Quite frankly, the most offensive part of this whole debacle is not that some people don't agree with the scientific consensus, but that they attack science itself. When the BS gets called they cry foul; Claim they are being stifled for holding a different opinion.
Remember that YOUR OPINION and the SCIENFIC CONSENSUS are NOT EQUAL and should not be presented as such. Your assertion that "those who are right invite discussion because they know their ideas are right..." in the context of this public debate shockingly naive. Discussion is always invited in the scientific community, provided that the discussion is scientific. What is not acceptable are those who try an 'end run' around the evidence and the method.
Precisely, but we must add one little caveat; the UCS doesn't want public debate on the scientific consensus. This is because the scientific consensus was arrived at through the scientific method, and is dependent on the available evidence. There is no room for public debate, if you discover that the scientific consensus is incorrect then you must provide scientifically valid evidence. Should this evidence be scientifically verified then the consensus must be reevaluated.
Anyone have a problem with the scientific method???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
On a personal note: The thing that confuses me is why so many people are so willing to be used as tools in a disinformation campaign.
As a final note: shame on all those moderators who keep modding comments 'insightful' simply because they question global warming. Have you read the moderator guidelines?
Maybe I'm wrong, but didn't popular mechanics have a feature article on Iraq's WMDs a few years ago?
Gandhi might beg to differ...
No, I don't think it makes too much sense to have armed individuals running around in a democratic society under the justification that the government might become oppressive. Frankly, you and your buddies with your M-16 pop guns have got no chance against the modern war machine. Then again, what do I know, I'm not American.
It seems to me that if you're really concerned with the future of your country why don't you ditch the firing range, join that NGO, get into the public service, or go get that law degree?
S.
How can this development be most effectively monetized? To my way of thinking that would be as a terminator sequence to protect someone's intellectual property. Think about it, if I was a seed company or any biotech firm I and everyone was using my stuff how can I enforce payment? If someone doesn't pay the licensing fee, I just turn it off. Better yet, if I can sneak my technology into the wild then I can demand payment from those with no intention of using my patented tech, assuming a sufficient spread, I could turn off large portions of anyone's crops. Make a few examples of farmers and the rest will have to fall in line because they don't want to take a chance that their contaminated too! Alternately, they could make their product dependent on a certain other product they sell to survive, the possibilities are endless.
This is the danger I see, mainly 'cause it's already happening, albeit to a lesser extent. The trick is just get it legalized with a whole bunch of legitimate, useful applications like tagging.
True, but it was a question designed to lead the reader to that conclusion. I simply spelled it out.
I thought the way to counter this was to compute a hash for the program. S.
I'm not sure why the parent was modded insightful, funny would be pushing it... It's logic seems to be on the flawed side, setting up a situation like this:
1. Something of a large magnitude happened thirty years ago when global climate change wasn't really an issue.
2. Something of a large magnitude happened recently.
Therefore, because things of a large magnitude have happen in the past uninfluenced by climate change, climate change is not playing a role in current events of large magnitude.
Now I'm no expert but I don't see how this conclusion actually follows.
To answer the question of what happend thirty years ago; Simply a large chunk of ice fell into the ocean. Why, I don't know. Maybe it grew too large to support itself. The fact is that climate change impacts the frequency and magnitude of natural events. The last time a comparable event occurred was 30 years ago, and who knows when the one before that occurred. But I would be willing to bet money that the next one, and the one after that, are not 30 years away.