That's not a troll, it's a sincere question. And I use geek in the good sense, being kinda geeky myself. =p
So, why is it that most of the geeks I know, despite being very intelligent, don't even vote? Many live even more of an apathetic couch potato lifestyle than the typical HS dropout mall rat, and yet these are college educated, smart people.
Seriously, why is that?
My theory is that a lot of tech people are less social (cliché but true) than other professional educated people, and so they take less interest in the complex and often irrational world of politics. Which makes sense to a point, nobody exactly loves politics and all the BS, but the outside world is still there and political apathy among geeks is bound to be a disaster for technology related issues. It's rather suicidal not to pay attention.
Take for example Net Neutrality, which lost today. Not because the public woundn't support Net Neutrality overwhelmingly, but because geeks didn't pay attention, the media didn't cover it, and the general public doesn't get it. Compare that with the tens of millions of dollars Telcos have spent on a massive disinfo campaign, and it's no wonder congress sold out to their friendly Telco lobbyist with the bag of money and campaign contributions. There was no politcal cost to sell out becasue the public is asleep.
Most sensible people don't want Telcos getting into the content business and using their natural monopoly to shape what services are available on the internet. Just like whenever a media consolidation issue breaks to the larger public, people don't want it. There are always two sides to an issue, and there are always paid web-buzz marketers on forum too, but generally when the public is aware of media consolidation issues they oppose them.
Here's what Telos can now do and it'll be perfectly legal:
1) Shut down sites they don't like for any reason they choose. No that's not paranoid, there is no law against that now and Telcos are free to do so. The loss of Net Neutrality means the "internet access" in one's EULA is free to mean whatever the Telco wants. It's true they won't take down any large sites right away because that would raise public awareness and cause a backlash and get them regulated. But, what they will do is guard their bandwidth like hawks so that the next up and coming site is stopped cold before becoming popular, especially if the Telco is in bed with a rival service.
2) Telcos can get into the content business and pump their own products while hobbling rivals without even telling the consumer. If for example a Bell wants to take money from AOL or whoever to pimp their site and hobble competitors, they can, and it'll be perfectly legal. How will people know or be able to prove a competitor is hobbled if it's done well? Even then, under the law as it now stands it'll be perfectly legal so there is nothing technically to complain about and the media probably won't cover complaints.
3) Due to recent legislation Telcos aren't even required to lease their lines to 3rd party ISP anymore either. So if you have a small ISP, look to see them die a slow death over the next few years as they lose leasing rights and get squeezed on fees till they're no longer competitive. Then when your local phone company has a near complete monopoly and anti-competitive advantage, what's to prevent the worst abuses on content filtering? Nothing at all. Some free market when there is no competition.
The loss of Net Neutrality is such a disaster, and it's really pathetic how uninformed and disinterested most tech types are. Democracy is only as good as the people, and a bunch of disinterested potatoes don't make for a good one. Why are tech people so apathetic they're letting the country be sold out from under them to corrupt pols and lobbyists, and yet they won't even lift a finger to save the things they value?
Re:If US ever passed anything like that ...
on
DRM and Democracy
·
· Score: 1
I think you're vastly over simplifying the issue and I'm never fond of arguments that presume a false sense of security which I think you're doing by downplaying the risk of DRM computing becoming a reality.
For one example, if government were to endorse DRM say through government bought computers, that would create a large shift in the market that would force HW makers to adopt DRM capability. That could happen due to the "war on terror" supposedly for national security, or it could just be lobbied well enough by the RIAA and such.
For another example, Microsoft and other DRM friendly companies are in the hardware business also. Apple's Ipod has created a huge market for their proprietary Itunes service, running on PC as well, even though their OSX has a small market share. By comparison, if MS had a hit product like Apple's Ipod they could slip DRM into it and incorporate that into Windows in a much larger scale, and many hardware makers would be forced to adopt it.
Having said that, the EU might still force MS to hobble DRM in Europe, or they might not. While Europe is better on these issues, they're not perfect and they have plenty of lobbyists and sleazy people too. Then there is Japan, Korea, and China, and China seems like a pro-DRM country if ever there was one. Add that up and the market forces in future likely lean very much towards DRM if the western public is asleep at the wheel.
I guess they forgot to disclose that in the EULA. Honest mistake, stuff happens.
Now let's go back to not worrying about DRM or Net Neutrality because Big Bussiness is looking out for our best interests.
If US ever passed anything like that ...
on
DRM and Democracy
·
· Score: 1
... they would be isolated from the world in this DRM-island. That would be the end of...
So.... We don't have to worry about our rights because other countries and market forces will do it for us??
Kewl! Let them do the schlep work of defending my rights, I've got pron to view. Can they vote for me too?
I love the free market and outsourcing. Maybe we can outsource national defense next?
So what? You can't copy/distribute out what other people (the companies) give you. Nothing stops you from distributing your own (non-DRMed) content.
Not true. There is DRM hardware and software which could do exactly that by preventing any non-DRM video/audio/etc from working. If Net Neutrality is lost then it's even easier for Telcos to start using DRM filtering modems and there is NO restriction on what they can filter the way their lobbyists are writing the laws.
So for example you could be forced by the major internet providers to buy a DSL/Cable internet modem with DRM built in, and then nothing they don't want goes I/O. They'll claim it's anti spam, anti child-porn, anti terror, etc but really it'll be giving them the keys to everything.
There are sneaky ways that could happen and a lot of the groundwork is already laid. There is the war on terror and various rationales given for internet restriction. There is the scare campaign exaggerating child porn and taking overly broad measures. There is the RIAA and war on piracy. Now we have a pending loss of Net Neutrality and DRM.... Put it together, it's a total loss of consumer protections and freedoms on the internet.
Microsoft for example claims hardware DRM wouldn't infringe on consumers freedom of speech because they'll give out free DRM keys to anyone needing one. But again, that gives them all the keys and power and is ripe for abuse. Not to mention what happens if that private data is lost by a company like Choice Point.
You're right nobody is going to openly come out and admit to curtailing free speech or screwing consumers in broad daylight. Instead it'll be a steady creep and erosion of consumer rights as fees and anti-competitive tactics rise.
Just look at the cable box and apply that concept to the internet to see where a loss of Net Neutrality and DRM would go.
Imagine if today's non-discriminating DSL/Cable modem was replaced with a filtering DRM box, and the providers were allowed to filter by law. Content could be keyed/encrypted and only approved content transmitted. That could be included in customer agreements so the user has no legal recourse or right to complain technically.
Also, simply one comapny boosting revenues by up-sells and filtering would force other companies to immediatly do so as well. Already the telco internet executives envy the cellular market for it's upsells, bandwidth conserving filtering, and constant fee gouging business model. Every cellular business guy I know is always talking about the cellular model being "like the internet, only with fees" and it's specifically becasue they control content and there is no Neutrality regulation. Look at how Verizon hobbled bluetooth on handsets to prevent users from using thier own ringtones, forcing them to buy from Verizon. And they even failed ot disclese that to customers and got sued for it. That's the company we want controlling internet content?
People must be crazy to even consider it.
Filtering and toll booths would be so easy becasue the internet infrastructure is a vital natural monopoly at many points which makes it ripe for abuse if regulations are lacking. The fiber backbone is quasi-monopolistic in many ways as only a few major providers control the vast majority bandwidth supply, which is limited and so each is guarenteed a hunk of the market regardless of how unethical practices may become if deregulated. Also the cost of infrastructure is so great that no new competitors other than the existing companies like ATT, Verizon, etc may participate.
Each would benefit tremendously from up-sells and increased margins on toll-gated content. There is no major telcom advocating Net Neutrality nor are there likely to be one, so that should tell people what the free-market oucome would be sans regulation. Filtered content and DRM enabled boxes.
It's crazy people are even debating Net Neutrality as though we can afford to lose it.
DRM makes filtering much easier though.
If Net Neutrality is lost and DRM is implemented, that's really the perfect storm scenario. Then Telcos are given the right to filter at thier discretion and the tools to do so. For example they could block or encrypt content (downloads/streams/VOIP/etc) and require propriatary players. It'll become a standard part of service contracts that the provider can filter content and the customer has no legal recourse. They'd justify it as blocking piracy or child porn or some other absurd law and order excuse.
For example, many people could sign up for cheap interent service that requires them to run DRM mail clients (to prevent SPAM supposedly) or even DRM hardware with spyware preventing any unsigned, unapproved content from working. In order for the data to even be transmitted it could require encryption and DRM keys, also forcing the reciever to be DRM'd and using the propriatary apps and formats.
It wouldn't happen overnight, that would cause a backlash from the public. But if various Telcos and big media associations slowly ratchet up the DRM and filtering/censorship, people will accept it. People better wise up now before this ugliness gains too much momentum to be stopped.
The scariest thing of all is that the general public is clueless on tech matters and many geeks are politcally apathetic. Bad combination.
Yeah, what's so amazing about what he's doing and why does our media cover this stuff?
The endurance flights of old didn't have GPS, didn't have autopilot, they didn't have sattelite communications. It all individual skill done in isolation. What Fosset does could be accomplished by any decent pilot with a little determination, and a lot of money to blow on the technology, aids, and backups he has. A computer could fly it, with a monkey along for the ride, which is pretty close to how Fosset flies.
Your ordinary anonymous test pilot is pushing the envelope way more than Fosset. Guys who fly small planes around the world in small hops have a way more adventures spirit than an endurance flier with GPS and autopilot who basically just stays up in the air and never taking any risks or requiring much skill. Acrobatic pilots are far more technically skilled. Your average bush pilot probably takes more risk and is a better pilot than Fosset.
It's a lot of PR fluff.
I think people are misunderstanding the whole nature of this law and the controversy around it. It's NOT about child porn.
The purpose of this law is to increase censorship on all porn, even legal porn, and it's driven by the Christian Right Wing, supposedly to protect children from viewing it.
That's why it's initially a 1st amendment issue (freedom of speech) which is now becoming a 4th amendment issue (unreasonable search and seizures) as the admin asks for private records. But make no mistake, the dispute is not a "child porn" issue, it's a censorship issue, supposedly to protect children. Big difference.
Child porn is already aggressively investigated by the DOJ, and it's an entirely separate thing. In those investigations, the DOJ has no trouble getting warrants which all the major companies including Google are happy to comply with to catch child pornographers.
It's also a pretty sneaky move by the admin, because obviously nobody likes the words "child" and "porn" anywhere near each other, which distorts and misrepresents the whole issue. So to anyone who took the bait, congrats, you've been had by the Bush admin and their clever spinners.
The idea the world just fixes itself, and the implication it fixes itself to be something humans would like, is just plain wrong. The earth for millions of years has cycled on it's own, from ice ages to global tropical states. It does that on a natural carbon cycle which ordinarily takes many millennium just to produce small atmospheric changes witch then have major global climate effects.
Either another ice age or another global warming would drive us pretty near extinction at our present level of technology. It would be hard enough even for the most advanced civilization to survive the weather. There would be radically different weather patterns, massive crop failures, etc. Add to that massive global destabilization producing wars for survival among nuclear powers.
The don't worry be happy approach to man made global warming is the epitome of self delusion, and is popular with the science illiterate. Those scientifically informed are very concerned and with good reason.
He is being a little "melodramatic" to get people's attention, but there is serious danger of major environmental change. And yes, "doomsday" scenarios are with a range of possible outcomes if we continue on this path.
Unfortunately, much of the public is essentially science illiterate. What knowledge they do have tends to be engineering based (such as auto mechanics, IT, or HS physics) which does next to nothing to inform a person about environmental science. "The weather" is one of those subjects where everybody has an opinion about it, and talk about it at great length, but only maybe one in a thousand is actually informed and has the foggiest clue about the subject. Ask most people when the last time they read a scientific journal was, or specifically when the last time they read about climatology in depth, and the answer is never.
As far as scientific consensus goes, yes there is global scientific unanimity that global man-made climate change (i.e. global warming) is real. The predicted outcomes range from mild trouble, to doomsday.
There is a reason why the predicted outcomes vary though, and it's a mistake to think mild to moderate is necessarily more likely than catastrophic. There is direct warming caused by man-made sources such as pollution. That is pretty easy to predict, because it's basically one really big lab experiment changing the atmosphere's insulation coefficient.
What's more difficult to predict, and far more dangerous, are the secondary and tertiary effects. For example, if the ice caps keep melting, that removes a large solar mirror which reflects a lot of energy, which would further accelerate warming and melting. Then there are global weather patterns which circulate moisture and heat around the continents and oceans. As temperatures rise climate models predict radically different weather patterns, including the changing of ocean currents. Then there is the possible extinction or migration of species which play vital roles in the ecosystem, which could have other secondary effects.
It's also a misnomer to call it "global warming" as it gives a misleading impression. For example, while the global average temperature might go up a few degrees Celsius over a given period, some areas would see large temp spikes while others would actually get colder. In general we'd all see far more energetic and extreme weather, from >100' heat waves in summer, to more winter weather producing more blizzards and such. Weather patterns like hurricanes would also increase, as they're fed by warm ocean water. In fact, the best global climate models have already been able to predict with a high degree of specificity where and how microclimates would change based on changes in average temps. So, global environmental prediction is pretty good, and what it predicts isn't.
Basically, we know enough to say we're messing with the environment in serious and measurable ways. From that alone we can predict a minimum of environmental change which includes more drastic weather, a rising sea, etc. Beyond that, it's hard to say how extreme it could get, and how far away from a what we'd consider normal it could get. There is historical evidence that the planet may have certain states it is likely to fall into, one being the ice age, and another being extremely hot global tropical weather. In either scenario we'd see massive crop failures and depopulation of many of the existing species.
We do know the earth is a very complex system with a potential for drastic (but not necessarily chaotic) outcomes from rapid climate change, manmade or otherwise. Attempts we've made for controlled biospheres have all failed miserable which gives an indication of how complex and in some ways delicate the ecosystem is. While life on earth overall may be quite robust and we can guarantee that something will survive no matter what, we can't guarantee that it will be us or other large mammals, or that we'll like the world we create if we change it very much away from it's historical balance.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not a troll, it's a sincere question. And I use geek in the good sense, being kinda geeky myself. =p
So, why is it that most of the geeks I know, despite being very intelligent, don't even vote? Many live even more of an apathetic couch potato lifestyle than the typical HS dropout mall rat, and yet these are college educated, smart people.
Seriously, why is that?
My theory is that a lot of tech people are less social (cliché but true) than other professional educated people, and so they take less interest in the complex and often irrational world of politics. Which makes sense to a point, nobody exactly loves politics and all the BS, but the outside world is still there and political apathy among geeks is bound to be a disaster for technology related issues. It's rather suicidal not to pay attention.
Take for example Net Neutrality, which lost today. Not because the public woundn't support Net Neutrality overwhelmingly, but because geeks didn't pay attention, the media didn't cover it, and the general public doesn't get it. Compare that with the tens of millions of dollars Telcos have spent on a massive disinfo campaign, and it's no wonder congress sold out to their friendly Telco lobbyist with the bag of money and campaign contributions. There was no politcal cost to sell out becasue the public is asleep.
Most sensible people don't want Telcos getting into the content business and using their natural monopoly to shape what services are available on the internet. Just like whenever a media consolidation issue breaks to the larger public, people don't want it. There are always two sides to an issue, and there are always paid web-buzz marketers on forum too, but generally when the public is aware of media consolidation issues they oppose them.
Here's what Telos can now do and it'll be perfectly legal:
1) Shut down sites they don't like for any reason they choose. No that's not paranoid, there is no law against that now and Telcos are free to do so. The loss of Net Neutrality means the "internet access" in one's EULA is free to mean whatever the Telco wants. It's true they won't take down any large sites right away because that would raise public awareness and cause a backlash and get them regulated. But, what they will do is guard their bandwidth like hawks so that the next up and coming site is stopped cold before becoming popular, especially if the Telco is in bed with a rival service.
2) Telcos can get into the content business and pump their own products while hobbling rivals without even telling the consumer. If for example a Bell wants to take money from AOL or whoever to pimp their site and hobble competitors, they can, and it'll be perfectly legal. How will people know or be able to prove a competitor is hobbled if it's done well? Even then, under the law as it now stands it'll be perfectly legal so there is nothing technically to complain about and the media probably won't cover complaints.
3) Due to recent legislation Telcos aren't even required to lease their lines to 3rd party ISP anymore either. So if you have a small ISP, look to see them die a slow death over the next few years as they lose leasing rights and get squeezed on fees till they're no longer competitive. Then when your local phone company has a near complete monopoly and anti-competitive advantage, what's to prevent the worst abuses on content filtering? Nothing at all. Some free market when there is no competition.
The loss of Net Neutrality is such a disaster, and it's really pathetic how uninformed and disinterested most tech types are. Democracy is only as good as the people, and a bunch of disinterested potatoes don't make for a good one. Why are tech people so apathetic they're letting the country be sold out from under them to corrupt pols and lobbyists, and yet they won't even lift a finger to save the things they value?
I think you're vastly over simplifying the issue and I'm never fond of arguments that presume a false sense of security which I think you're doing by downplaying the risk of DRM computing becoming a reality. For one example, if government were to endorse DRM say through government bought computers, that would create a large shift in the market that would force HW makers to adopt DRM capability. That could happen due to the "war on terror" supposedly for national security, or it could just be lobbied well enough by the RIAA and such. For another example, Microsoft and other DRM friendly companies are in the hardware business also. Apple's Ipod has created a huge market for their proprietary Itunes service, running on PC as well, even though their OSX has a small market share. By comparison, if MS had a hit product like Apple's Ipod they could slip DRM into it and incorporate that into Windows in a much larger scale, and many hardware makers would be forced to adopt it. Having said that, the EU might still force MS to hobble DRM in Europe, or they might not. While Europe is better on these issues, they're not perfect and they have plenty of lobbyists and sleazy people too. Then there is Japan, Korea, and China, and China seems like a pro-DRM country if ever there was one. Add that up and the market forces in future likely lean very much towards DRM if the western public is asleep at the wheel.
I guess they forgot to disclose that in the EULA. Honest mistake, stuff happens. Now let's go back to not worrying about DRM or Net Neutrality because Big Bussiness is looking out for our best interests.
So.... We don't have to worry about our rights because other countries and market forces will do it for us??
Kewl! Let them do the schlep work of defending my rights, I've got pron to view. Can they vote for me too?
I love the free market and outsourcing. Maybe we can outsource national defense next?
Not true. There is DRM hardware and software which could do exactly that by preventing any non-DRM video/audio/etc from working. If Net Neutrality is lost then it's even easier for Telcos to start using DRM filtering modems and there is NO restriction on what they can filter the way their lobbyists are writing the laws.
So for example you could be forced by the major internet providers to buy a DSL/Cable internet modem with DRM built in, and then nothing they don't want goes I/O. They'll claim it's anti spam, anti child-porn, anti terror, etc but really it'll be giving them the keys to everything.
There are sneaky ways that could happen and a lot of the groundwork is already laid. There is the war on terror and various rationales given for internet restriction. There is the scare campaign exaggerating child porn and taking overly broad measures. There is the RIAA and war on piracy. Now we have a pending loss of Net Neutrality and DRM.... Put it together, it's a total loss of consumer protections and freedoms on the internet.
Microsoft for example claims hardware DRM wouldn't infringe on consumers freedom of speech because they'll give out free DRM keys to anyone needing one. But again, that gives them all the keys and power and is ripe for abuse. Not to mention what happens if that private data is lost by a company like Choice Point.
You're right nobody is going to openly come out and admit to curtailing free speech or screwing consumers in broad daylight. Instead it'll be a steady creep and erosion of consumer rights as fees and anti-competitive tactics rise.
Just look at the cable box and apply that concept to the internet to see where a loss of Net Neutrality and DRM would go.
Imagine if today's non-discriminating DSL/Cable modem was replaced with a filtering DRM box, and the providers were allowed to filter by law. Content could be keyed/encrypted and only approved content transmitted. That could be included in customer agreements so the user has no legal recourse or right to complain technically.
Also, simply one comapny boosting revenues by up-sells and filtering would force other companies to immediatly do so as well. Already the telco internet executives envy the cellular market for it's upsells, bandwidth conserving filtering, and constant fee gouging business model. Every cellular business guy I know is always talking about the cellular model being "like the internet, only with fees" and it's specifically becasue they control content and there is no Neutrality regulation. Look at how Verizon hobbled bluetooth on handsets to prevent users from using thier own ringtones, forcing them to buy from Verizon. And they even failed ot disclese that to customers and got sued for it. That's the company we want controlling internet content?
People must be crazy to even consider it.
Filtering and toll booths would be so easy becasue the internet infrastructure is a vital natural monopoly at many points which makes it ripe for abuse if regulations are lacking. The fiber backbone is quasi-monopolistic in many ways as only a few major providers control the vast majority bandwidth supply, which is limited and so each is guarenteed a hunk of the market regardless of how unethical practices may become if deregulated. Also the cost of infrastructure is so great that no new competitors other than the existing companies like ATT, Verizon, etc may participate.
Each would benefit tremendously from up-sells and increased margins on toll-gated content. There is no major telcom advocating Net Neutrality nor are there likely to be one, so that should tell people what the free-market oucome would be sans regulation. Filtered content and DRM enabled boxes.
It's crazy people are even debating Net Neutrality as though we can afford to lose it.
DRM makes filtering much easier though. If Net Neutrality is lost and DRM is implemented, that's really the perfect storm scenario. Then Telcos are given the right to filter at thier discretion and the tools to do so. For example they could block or encrypt content (downloads/streams/VOIP/etc) and require propriatary players. It'll become a standard part of service contracts that the provider can filter content and the customer has no legal recourse. They'd justify it as blocking piracy or child porn or some other absurd law and order excuse. For example, many people could sign up for cheap interent service that requires them to run DRM mail clients (to prevent SPAM supposedly) or even DRM hardware with spyware preventing any unsigned, unapproved content from working. In order for the data to even be transmitted it could require encryption and DRM keys, also forcing the reciever to be DRM'd and using the propriatary apps and formats. It wouldn't happen overnight, that would cause a backlash from the public. But if various Telcos and big media associations slowly ratchet up the DRM and filtering/censorship, people will accept it. People better wise up now before this ugliness gains too much momentum to be stopped. The scariest thing of all is that the general public is clueless on tech matters and many geeks are politcally apathetic. Bad combination.
Yeah, what's so amazing about what he's doing and why does our media cover this stuff? The endurance flights of old didn't have GPS, didn't have autopilot, they didn't have sattelite communications. It all individual skill done in isolation. What Fosset does could be accomplished by any decent pilot with a little determination, and a lot of money to blow on the technology, aids, and backups he has. A computer could fly it, with a monkey along for the ride, which is pretty close to how Fosset flies. Your ordinary anonymous test pilot is pushing the envelope way more than Fosset. Guys who fly small planes around the world in small hops have a way more adventures spirit than an endurance flier with GPS and autopilot who basically just stays up in the air and never taking any risks or requiring much skill. Acrobatic pilots are far more technically skilled. Your average bush pilot probably takes more risk and is a better pilot than Fosset. It's a lot of PR fluff.
I think people are misunderstanding the whole nature of this law and the controversy around it. It's NOT about child porn.
The purpose of this law is to increase censorship on all porn, even legal porn, and it's driven by the Christian Right Wing, supposedly to protect children from viewing it.
That's why it's initially a 1st amendment issue (freedom of speech) which is now becoming a 4th amendment issue (unreasonable search and seizures) as the admin asks for private records. But make no mistake, the dispute is not a "child porn" issue, it's a censorship issue, supposedly to protect children. Big difference.
Child porn is already aggressively investigated by the DOJ, and it's an entirely separate thing. In those investigations, the DOJ has no trouble getting warrants which all the major companies including Google are happy to comply with to catch child pornographers.
It's also a pretty sneaky move by the admin, because obviously nobody likes the words "child" and "porn" anywhere near each other, which distorts and misrepresents the whole issue. So to anyone who took the bait, congrats, you've been had by the Bush admin and their clever spinners.
=P
The idea the world just fixes itself, and the implication it fixes itself to be something humans would like, is just plain wrong. The earth for millions of years has cycled on it's own, from ice ages to global tropical states. It does that on a natural carbon cycle which ordinarily takes many millennium just to produce small atmospheric changes witch then have major global climate effects. Either another ice age or another global warming would drive us pretty near extinction at our present level of technology. It would be hard enough even for the most advanced civilization to survive the weather. There would be radically different weather patterns, massive crop failures, etc. Add to that massive global destabilization producing wars for survival among nuclear powers. The don't worry be happy approach to man made global warming is the epitome of self delusion, and is popular with the science illiterate. Those scientifically informed are very concerned and with good reason.
He is being a little "melodramatic" to get people's attention, but there is serious danger of major environmental change. And yes, "doomsday" scenarios are with a range of possible outcomes if we continue on this path. Unfortunately, much of the public is essentially science illiterate. What knowledge they do have tends to be engineering based (such as auto mechanics, IT, or HS physics) which does next to nothing to inform a person about environmental science. "The weather" is one of those subjects where everybody has an opinion about it, and talk about it at great length, but only maybe one in a thousand is actually informed and has the foggiest clue about the subject. Ask most people when the last time they read a scientific journal was, or specifically when the last time they read about climatology in depth, and the answer is never. As far as scientific consensus goes, yes there is global scientific unanimity that global man-made climate change (i.e. global warming) is real. The predicted outcomes range from mild trouble, to doomsday. There is a reason why the predicted outcomes vary though, and it's a mistake to think mild to moderate is necessarily more likely than catastrophic. There is direct warming caused by man-made sources such as pollution. That is pretty easy to predict, because it's basically one really big lab experiment changing the atmosphere's insulation coefficient. What's more difficult to predict, and far more dangerous, are the secondary and tertiary effects. For example, if the ice caps keep melting, that removes a large solar mirror which reflects a lot of energy, which would further accelerate warming and melting. Then there are global weather patterns which circulate moisture and heat around the continents and oceans. As temperatures rise climate models predict radically different weather patterns, including the changing of ocean currents. Then there is the possible extinction or migration of species which play vital roles in the ecosystem, which could have other secondary effects. It's also a misnomer to call it "global warming" as it gives a misleading impression. For example, while the global average temperature might go up a few degrees Celsius over a given period, some areas would see large temp spikes while others would actually get colder. In general we'd all see far more energetic and extreme weather, from >100' heat waves in summer, to more winter weather producing more blizzards and such. Weather patterns like hurricanes would also increase, as they're fed by warm ocean water. In fact, the best global climate models have already been able to predict with a high degree of specificity where and how microclimates would change based on changes in average temps. So, global environmental prediction is pretty good, and what it predicts isn't. Basically, we know enough to say we're messing with the environment in serious and measurable ways. From that alone we can predict a minimum of environmental change which includes more drastic weather, a rising sea, etc. Beyond that, it's hard to say how extreme it could get, and how far away from a what we'd consider normal it could get. There is historical evidence that the planet may have certain states it is likely to fall into, one being the ice age, and another being extremely hot global tropical weather. In either scenario we'd see massive crop failures and depopulation of many of the existing species. We do know the earth is a very complex system with a potential for drastic (but not necessarily chaotic) outcomes from rapid climate change, manmade or otherwise. Attempts we've made for controlled biospheres have all failed miserable which gives an indication of how complex and in some ways delicate the ecosystem is. While life on earth overall may be quite robust and we can guarantee that something will survive no matter what, we can't guarantee that it will be us or other large mammals, or that we'll like the world we create if we change it very much away from it's historical balance.