I don't disagree with any of the arguments you have made, but I think you underestimate the importance of both "idiots" and sound-bites.
No, I'm fully aware that sound bites can be very important in swaying perceptions and influencing public policy. I just believe that the best way to inform people is to present them with all the facts, instead of clipping out parts in order to shape perceptions.
Interestingly enough, that also means that I'm opposed to what the CRU folks did when they merged temperature data from multiple sources into a single graph. The proper way for them to present their findings would have been to plot the full extent of all the sources, and offer an explanation of why the various bits were discarded. If they had been a little more honest and open about their methodology, they could have largely avoided this little tempest.
So, long story short, I'm opposed to dishonesty regardless of your position.
Policy comes from politicians, not scientists. In a representative democracy, politicians are (loosely) accountable to the electorate, consisting largely of "idiots", who, particularly on complex issues, tend to base their views on sound-bites.
I don't have the required level of cynicism to believe that the electorate is largely composed of idiots. The problem isn't lack of intelligence so much as lack of information, and an abundance of ideological bias. You can generate sound-bites which get your message across without having to lie to people, withhold information from them, or insult their intelligence.
Yeah... next time take the time to read through the whole conversation. It'll help you avoid flaming people who were making the exact same point that you are.
I hate to be a sourpuss, but it looks pretty bad when you begin your refutation of data manipulation by saying "less than 5 percent" is "NONE".
What I did by quoting that first bit is called "honesty". It's usually done by people who actually care about things like "honour", "truth", and "morality". Of course, the downside is that idiots who only care about sound-bites will focus exclusively on that single phrase, while ignoring the rest of the statement. That's the price we pay for maintaining our integrity.
Axiom 1 seems to be correct, and 2 is definitely correct and I infer 3, which seems logical, but it's complete shit.
Thanks, I laughed so hard at that bit I almost choked. I'll definitely be quoting you in the future:)
You're absolutely right, except that it's not just "internet conspiracy theorists". This has been going on for a long, long time. Go back and look at the claims made about the JFK assassination, and you'll see the same pattern. Hell, 2,000 years ago, after Rome burned to the ground, there were fools running around blaming Nero ("OMG, INSIDE JOB!"). I'm willing to bet that they used the same "logic". It's human nature. We see an event which we can't explain, we come up with a plausible explanation, and then we ignore all contrary evidence in order to make ourselves feel smarter. That sort of behavior is exactly why we came up with the scientific process; it's meant to counter the inherent fallibility of man.
There, FTFY in light of the CRU emails, their stacking of the deck for editorial bias in what is allowed to be published in journals, their refusal to produce the data and algorithms and share them with critics in their field as well as those outside the field and their politicization of what is obviously a very important issue into a vehicle for massive forced political collectivism the likes of which the world hasn't seen since Mao.
Nice blurb, but completely unsupported by evidence.
There is plenty of room to disagree that any significant climate change is caused by humans, or can be remedied by humans.
Sure. So what? That doesn't excuse the idiotic behavior of the denialiasts. If you're going to object, do so in a rational manner, otherwise I'll have even less respect for you than for those with whom I disagree.
the Human-caused GW side is making extraordinary claims...
What's extraordinary about the claim that increased greenhouse gases cause an increase in temperature?
and demanding extraordinary actions that threaten individual liberty, social justice and the quality of life on a global scale
That's pure hyperbole. Even if your prior point were valid (which it's not) this follow-up "point" would have completely discredited your argument. Try to stick to the facts, and we can have a discussion. Produce FUD and I'll just ignore you. Your call.
Even so, simple historical knowledge should convince you AGW can't be true. Greenland used to be GREEN with vegetation. It is presently covered in ice. What does that tell you?
It tells me that, with that single, simple statement, you've announced that you know absolutely nothing about climate science.
FYI, it's quite possible, and, in fact, quite normal, for some parts of the world to experience temperature trends which go against the average global temperature trends. If you don't understand such a basic concept, how can you possibly expect to understand any of the other claims made by climate researchers?
Happens to me all the time because I don't buy into the Slashtard groupthink.
No, it happens to you all the time because you don't take the time to think. As long as you insist on throwing emotional FUD all over the place, you're going to keep getting modded down.
Because he's using his ignorance of the field of climate science to imply that the peer-review process is no better than a religion. If you can't see what's wrong with that, then there's something very wrong with you.
The scientific community is still a human institution, and thus vulnerable to the various human weaknesses.
That's right, they are, which means that no matter how good the system is there will always be some who abuse it. On the other hand, it doesn't mean that the system itself is no better than one which is based on faith-based acceptance of dogma.
To put it another way - sure, in any democracy there will be people who take advantage of the political system to give themselves increased wealth and power at the expense of others. That doesn't mean that democracy and fascism are the same thing, even though there are plenty of idiots who will tell you that they are. And those idiots would get modded "flamebait", also.
Not every climate skeptic is a denialist ostrich. Many of us can be converted with patience, lucidity and openness.
That's a fair enough argument. The question then becomes, what's the cost/benefit trade-off?
Take another example - 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Yes, some of them can be deprogrammed and brought back into mainstream society. I've done it a few times myself. But how much time and effort should we really be putting into this? Do we REALLY need multi-million-dollar studies which 90% of them will ignore anyway? How do we approach the problem? Even if we put all our time and energy into it, how do we know when we've reduced the movement down to just those who are unable to listen to reason? Do we continue the effort for the next thousand years, or is there a point at which we can say "enough is enough"?
Honestly, I was never 100% convinced that AGW is a problem that we should to be worrying about right now. Probably not even 80% convinced. What I do know that this "climategate" manufactroversy is complete fucking nonsense. If anything, it's put me further into the mainstream camp simply because it's exposed the sheer lunacy and ignorance of the other side. If you're at all swayed by the release of the CRU e-mails, you seriously need to re-examine how you discriminate between good and bad data.
I am thoroughly convinced that no amount of evidence at this point can convince the skeptics.
Calling them skeptics is a bastardization of what skepticism is actually about. It's like calling holocaust deniers "holocaust skeptics". It's correct in a purely technical sense, but it's a slap in the face to Skeptical organizations around the world. True skepticism is supposed to be grounded in science and reason, not personal bias and misinformation.
The research unit has deleted less than 5 percent of its original station data from its database because the stations had several discontinuities or were affected by urbanization trends, Jones said.
"When you're looking at climate data, you don't want stations that are showing urban warming trends," Jones said, "so we've taken them out." Most of the stations for which data was removed are located in areas where there were already dense monitoring networks, he added. "We rarely removed a station in a data-sparse region of the world."
Refuting CEI's claims of data-destruction, Jones said, "We haven't destroyed anything. The data is still there -- you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center."
In other words, the guys at CRU deleted the junk which they didn't think was worth keeping. But since their data came from external sources, all of the original data is STILL AVAILABLE. Of course, you won't hear about that at the usual denier blogs, since it's just so much easier to keep your flock bleeting in ignorance when you can say "OMFG, DEY DELETED DA DAT0RZ!!!!".
You do realize that jet fuel is about ten times as dense as liquid hydrogen...
Actually, no, I wasn't aware of that. It seemed so unlikely that I had to go and look it up. Turns out you're right, and I'm very, very surprised.
and releases a similar amount of energy per unit mass?
Ah, but on this part, you're wrong. Hydrogen has more than 2 times the density of oil-based fuels, meaning that it takes up roughly 4-5 times as much volume per unit of energy. In which case, if we go with my original estimates, the space shuttle carries about twice as much energy as a jetliner.
Really, I was being generous with the estimates - very few airliners actually carry 200,000 liters of fuel, and even those that do certainly don't burn through every single drop (it tends to make the landings rather bumpy). So I guess the energy expenditure to get the shuttle into orbit is the same as, say, 3 transcontinental flights. Which really isn't as bad as I thought - and thanks for the info about hydrogen density - but still isn't nearly as good as you originally claimed.
As it turns out, I based the cost of the rocket on cost of fuel consumed per kilogram of payload. That naturally takes into account the inefficiency of having to bring your own oxidizer with you (which increases overall propellant consumption considerably) as well as any other such inefficiencies that consume more propellant.
Yep, I've got no problem with that part of your comment. In fact, I tend to agree that we could probably bring the cost down to "$300 per kg for vehicles using liquid oxygen and hydrogen or $100 per kg for vehicles using liquid oxygen and kerosene". The only part I really objected to (and I thought my comment made this clear) was the bit where you claim that "a long passenger jet flight consumes a similar amount of energy as it takes to reach orbit". Me and my luggage together probably weigh 120kg+, and last time I checked I wasn't paying between between $12,000 and $36,000 to fly anywhere on the earth. If we could get costs down to that level it would put orbital flights within the price range of many people, but it would still be an order of magnitude higher than an airplane flight to the opposite side of the globe.
Getting people stuck on other gravity wells in the Solar System is silly and expensive.
I think your broad generalizations are silly, even if they are relatively cheap. Getting "stuck" in the gravity well of the moon could be a wonderful thing for our species, providing we can create facilities to mine the resources we need from the moon itself. In that case, being able to build and launch spacecraft from the moon would make future missions orders of magnitude less expensive.
Even then, one could argue that really at no point does it ever being more than a "joy ride" since the amount of energy required is so massive that it's incredibly unlikely that anything could be discovered to make it worthwhile from a purely utilitarian perspective. In short, if one can't accept today that the things done by astronauts in space are more than a "joy ride", then I don't see how you could see any action by astronauts in space as more than a "joy ride"
Very true. Just look at that Captain Kirk guy. Sure, he had a great time cruising around the universe and nailing alien women, but what did he ever do that had practical applications? Nothing! The Earth government got stuck footing the bill for his joy-rides, while getting absolutely nothing in return. It's sickening.
You have similar energy needs (a long passenger jet flight consumes a similar amount of energy as it takes to reach orbit)
Wait.... WHAT? In what universe?
I was with you on the previous comment, but now you've completely derailed and started to roll. Your average jetliner holds less than 200,000 liters of fuel. The external tank for the Space Shuttle holds 500,000 liters of liquid oxygen, and 1.5 MILLION liters of hydrogen, for a combined total of 2 million liters of liquid propellant. So, on volume alone, it takes 10 times as much fuel to go into orbit, and that's without considering the fact that the H2/02 mixture releases a hell of a lot more energy than your standard jet-fuel.
Now, yeah, the space shuttle isn't exactly the most efficient means of getting stuff in orbit, but even if you came up with a much more efficient launch system there's no way in hell you'd ever make it as fuel-efficient as a trans-continental commercial flight. Not even close.
The best thing that I can say about your comment is that it's entirely consistent with your nom de plume. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're consciously being an ass, rather than voicing your true opinion.
Ah, so you're not actually at risk of deploying, you're just throwing that in there to try and give your comment some semblance of credibility. Does that actually work for you? Ever?
If the publisher who puts out the book received a percentage of the spoils from the robbery, then probably.
Except that's not the case here. This is more akin to a the robber having to pay for his copy of the White Pages, as well as possibly paying to have his number listed in the "for sale" section of the Yellow Pages.
We cannot win. Afghanistan has proven intractable to central governance even with 105,000 Soviets there and the will to use armaments that we blanch at. There is no reason to expect that a lesser number of US troops will have any more luck.
The soviets lost over 14,000 personnel during their little misadventure - the entire NATO loss so far has been under 2,000. You clearly don't have even the most tenuous grasp on either the history of the area, or on the difference between soviet and NATO tactics. During the soviet war, millions of refugees fled Afghanistan. After the 2001 invasion, millions came back. If you can figurer out the reason behind those figures, you'll be well on your way to understanding why we cannot lose.
3. I am at risk of deploying there myself shortly.
Who are you deploying with? The 901st Cooking and Mopping Battalion? Or will you be working at the Burger King in Kandahar?
Stability will NEVER be achieved there without killing all the civilians (remember, the "insurgents" are also civilians). The people in that part of the world are not advanced enough to have a nation; they still have a tribal mentality.
Ignoring, for a minute, the racism/bigotry inherent in your comment... your initial claims is sheer nonsense. We've had plenty of success providing stability and improving the lives of the average Afghani. Tribalism is dominant in the border provinces, largely due to their isolation from the rest of the country - that's why we've made the construction of roads a high priority.
In my experience, idiots who resist arrest always seem shocked when they're met with force. I think it's a strange form of narcissism - this irrational belief that only your desires matter, and that you can do whatever you want without fear of repercussions.
I keep hearing about awesome revolutionary inventions that are cheap, flexible, and tiny. Super efficient solar panels, screens, memory, everything. And yet, somehow, years pass and I never see them actually used in consumer electronics.
You're just not paying attention. Think back 10 years, and try to figure out how big a device would have had to be in order to perform the same functions as, for example, an iPhone. It would be at least 5 times as thick. Would have cost an thousands of dollars, too. 20 years ago you would have needed a backpack to cart it around in. Technology progresses in small steps, so that you tend to miss it unless you're actually paying attention. It's not until you look at old photographs or videos that you realize how much has changed.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't disagree with any of the arguments you have made, but I think you underestimate the importance of both "idiots" and sound-bites.
No, I'm fully aware that sound bites can be very important in swaying perceptions and influencing public policy. I just believe that the best way to inform people is to present them with all the facts, instead of clipping out parts in order to shape perceptions.
Interestingly enough, that also means that I'm opposed to what the CRU folks did when they merged temperature data from multiple sources into a single graph. The proper way for them to present their findings would have been to plot the full extent of all the sources, and offer an explanation of why the various bits were discarded. If they had been a little more honest and open about their methodology, they could have largely avoided this little tempest.
So, long story short, I'm opposed to dishonesty regardless of your position.
Policy comes from politicians, not scientists. In a representative democracy, politicians are (loosely) accountable to the electorate, consisting largely of "idiots", who, particularly on complex issues, tend to base their views on sound-bites.
I don't have the required level of cynicism to believe that the electorate is largely composed of idiots. The problem isn't lack of intelligence so much as lack of information, and an abundance of ideological bias. You can generate sound-bites which get your message across without having to lie to people, withhold information from them, or insult their intelligence.
You get points for not being an anonymous coward, but lose points for flailing around with the "official conspiracy theory" canard.
If you can't or won't understand what the phrase "conspiracy theory" means, there's very little for us to discuss.
Yeah ... next time take the time to read through the whole conversation. It'll help you avoid flaming people who were making the exact same point that you are.
Safe dial?
Is this like safe phone sex?
For a low, low, introductory price, specially trained Google technicians will come to Your Home and install a Gondom on your telephone receiver!
I hate to be a sourpuss, but it looks pretty bad when you begin your refutation of data manipulation by saying "less than 5 percent" is "NONE".
What I did by quoting that first bit is called "honesty". It's usually done by people who actually care about things like "honour", "truth", and "morality". Of course, the downside is that idiots who only care about sound-bites will focus exclusively on that single phrase, while ignoring the rest of the statement. That's the price we pay for maintaining our integrity.
Axiom 1 seems to be correct, and 2 is definitely correct and I infer 3, which seems logical, but it's complete shit.
Thanks, I laughed so hard at that bit I almost choked. I'll definitely be quoting you in the future :)
You're absolutely right, except that it's not just "internet conspiracy theorists". This has been going on for a long, long time. Go back and look at the claims made about the JFK assassination, and you'll see the same pattern. Hell, 2,000 years ago, after Rome burned to the ground, there were fools running around blaming Nero ("OMG, INSIDE JOB!"). I'm willing to bet that they used the same "logic". It's human nature. We see an event which we can't explain, we come up with a plausible explanation, and then we ignore all contrary evidence in order to make ourselves feel smarter. That sort of behavior is exactly why we came up with the scientific process; it's meant to counter the inherent fallibility of man.
There, FTFY in light of the CRU emails, their stacking of the deck for editorial bias in what is allowed to be published in journals, their refusal to produce the data and algorithms and share them with critics in their field as well as those outside the field and their politicization of what is obviously a very important issue into a vehicle for massive forced political collectivism the likes of which the world hasn't seen since Mao.
Nice blurb, but completely unsupported by evidence.
There is plenty of room to disagree that any significant climate change is caused by humans, or can be remedied by humans.
Sure. So what? That doesn't excuse the idiotic behavior of the denialiasts. If you're going to object, do so in a rational manner, otherwise I'll have even less respect for you than for those with whom I disagree.
the Human-caused GW side is making extraordinary claims...
What's extraordinary about the claim that increased greenhouse gases cause an increase in temperature?
and demanding extraordinary actions that threaten individual liberty, social justice and the quality of life on a global scale
That's pure hyperbole. Even if your prior point were valid (which it's not) this follow-up "point" would have completely discredited your argument. Try to stick to the facts, and we can have a discussion. Produce FUD and I'll just ignore you. Your call.
Even so, simple historical knowledge should convince you AGW can't be true. Greenland used to be GREEN with vegetation. It is presently covered in ice. What does that tell you?
It tells me that, with that single, simple statement, you've announced that you know absolutely nothing about climate science.
FYI, it's quite possible, and, in fact, quite normal, for some parts of the world to experience temperature trends which go against the average global temperature trends. If you don't understand such a basic concept, how can you possibly expect to understand any of the other claims made by climate researchers?
Happens to me all the time because I don't buy into the Slashtard groupthink.
No, it happens to you all the time because you don't take the time to think. As long as you insist on throwing emotional FUD all over the place, you're going to keep getting modded down.
Why was this modded flamebait?
Because he's using his ignorance of the field of climate science to imply that the peer-review process is no better than a religion. If you can't see what's wrong with that, then there's something very wrong with you.
The scientific community is still a human institution, and thus vulnerable to the various human weaknesses.
That's right, they are, which means that no matter how good the system is there will always be some who abuse it. On the other hand, it doesn't mean that the system itself is no better than one which is based on faith-based acceptance of dogma.
To put it another way - sure, in any democracy there will be people who take advantage of the political system to give themselves increased wealth and power at the expense of others. That doesn't mean that democracy and fascism are the same thing, even though there are plenty of idiots who will tell you that they are. And those idiots would get modded "flamebait", also.
Not every climate skeptic is a denialist ostrich. Many of us can be converted with patience, lucidity and openness.
That's a fair enough argument. The question then becomes, what's the cost/benefit trade-off?
Take another example - 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Yes, some of them can be deprogrammed and brought back into mainstream society. I've done it a few times myself. But how much time and effort should we really be putting into this? Do we REALLY need multi-million-dollar studies which 90% of them will ignore anyway? How do we approach the problem? Even if we put all our time and energy into it, how do we know when we've reduced the movement down to just those who are unable to listen to reason? Do we continue the effort for the next thousand years, or is there a point at which we can say "enough is enough"?
Honestly, I was never 100% convinced that AGW is a problem that we should to be worrying about right now. Probably not even 80% convinced. What I do know that this "climategate" manufactroversy is complete fucking nonsense. If anything, it's put me further into the mainstream camp simply because it's exposed the sheer lunacy and ignorance of the other side. If you're at all swayed by the release of the CRU e-mails, you seriously need to re-examine how you discriminate between good and bad data.
I am thoroughly convinced that no amount of evidence at this point can convince the skeptics.
Calling them skeptics is a bastardization of what skepticism is actually about. It's like calling holocaust deniers "holocaust skeptics". It's correct in a purely technical sense, but it's a slap in the face to Skeptical organizations around the world. True skepticism is supposed to be grounded in science and reason, not personal bias and misinformation.
I can't believe that your comment got modded insightful.
NONE of the data has been erased. Here's a quote:
The research unit has deleted less than 5 percent of its original station data from its database because the stations had several discontinuities or were affected by urbanization trends, Jones said.
"When you're looking at climate data, you don't want stations that are showing urban warming trends," Jones said, "so we've taken them out." Most of the stations for which data was removed are located in areas where there were already dense monitoring networks, he added. "We rarely removed a station in a data-sparse region of the world."
Refuting CEI's claims of data-destruction, Jones said, "We haven't destroyed anything. The data is still there -- you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center."
In other words, the guys at CRU deleted the junk which they didn't think was worth keeping. But since their data came from external sources, all of the original data is STILL AVAILABLE. Of course, you won't hear about that at the usual denier blogs, since it's just so much easier to keep your flock bleeting in ignorance when you can say "OMFG, DEY DELETED DA DAT0RZ!!!!".
Er... change the "more than 2 times the density" to "more than 2 times the energy content per unit mass", and it'll make a lot more sense.
You do realize that jet fuel is about ten times as dense as liquid hydrogen ...
Actually, no, I wasn't aware of that. It seemed so unlikely that I had to go and look it up. Turns out you're right, and I'm very, very surprised.
and releases a similar amount of energy per unit mass?
Ah, but on this part, you're wrong. Hydrogen has more than 2 times the density of oil-based fuels, meaning that it takes up roughly 4-5 times as much volume per unit of energy. In which case, if we go with my original estimates, the space shuttle carries about twice as much energy as a jetliner.
Really, I was being generous with the estimates - very few airliners actually carry 200,000 liters of fuel, and even those that do certainly don't burn through every single drop (it tends to make the landings rather bumpy). So I guess the energy expenditure to get the shuttle into orbit is the same as, say, 3 transcontinental flights. Which really isn't as bad as I thought - and thanks for the info about hydrogen density - but still isn't nearly as good as you originally claimed.
As it turns out, I based the cost of the rocket on cost of fuel consumed per kilogram of payload. That naturally takes into account the inefficiency of having to bring your own oxidizer with you (which increases overall propellant consumption considerably) as well as any other such inefficiencies that consume more propellant.
Yep, I've got no problem with that part of your comment. In fact, I tend to agree that we could probably bring the cost down to "$300 per kg for vehicles using liquid oxygen and hydrogen or $100 per kg for vehicles using liquid oxygen and kerosene". The only part I really objected to (and I thought my comment made this clear) was the bit where you claim that "a long passenger jet flight consumes a similar amount of energy as it takes to reach orbit". Me and my luggage together probably weigh 120kg+, and last time I checked I wasn't paying between between $12,000 and $36,000 to fly anywhere on the earth. If we could get costs down to that level it would put orbital flights within the price range of many people, but it would still be an order of magnitude higher than an airplane flight to the opposite side of the globe.
Getting people stuck on other gravity wells in the Solar System is silly and expensive.
I think your broad generalizations are silly, even if they are relatively cheap. Getting "stuck" in the gravity well of the moon could be a wonderful thing for our species, providing we can create facilities to mine the resources we need from the moon itself. In that case, being able to build and launch spacecraft from the moon would make future missions orders of magnitude less expensive.
Even then, one could argue that really at no point does it ever being more than a "joy ride" since the amount of energy required is so massive that it's incredibly unlikely that anything could be discovered to make it worthwhile from a purely utilitarian perspective. In short, if one can't accept today that the things done by astronauts in space are more than a "joy ride", then I don't see how you could see any action by astronauts in space as more than a "joy ride"
Very true. Just look at that Captain Kirk guy. Sure, he had a great time cruising around the universe and nailing alien women, but what did he ever do that had practical applications? Nothing! The Earth government got stuck footing the bill for his joy-rides, while getting absolutely nothing in return. It's sickening.
You have similar energy needs (a long passenger jet flight consumes a similar amount of energy as it takes to reach orbit)
Wait .... WHAT? In what universe?
I was with you on the previous comment, but now you've completely derailed and started to roll. Your average jetliner holds less than 200,000 liters of fuel. The external tank for the Space Shuttle holds 500,000 liters of liquid oxygen, and 1.5 MILLION liters of hydrogen, for a combined total of 2 million liters of liquid propellant. So, on volume alone, it takes 10 times as much fuel to go into orbit, and that's without considering the fact that the H2/02 mixture releases a hell of a lot more energy than your standard jet-fuel.
Now, yeah, the space shuttle isn't exactly the most efficient means of getting stuff in orbit, but even if you came up with a much more efficient launch system there's no way in hell you'd ever make it as fuel-efficient as a trans-continental commercial flight. Not even close.
The best thing that I can say about your comment is that it's entirely consistent with your nom de plume. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're consciously being an ass, rather than voicing your true opinion.
Ah, so you're not actually at risk of deploying, you're just throwing that in there to try and give your comment some semblance of credibility. Does that actually work for you? Ever?
If the publisher who puts out the book received a percentage of the spoils from the robbery, then probably.
Except that's not the case here. This is more akin to a the robber having to pay for his copy of the White Pages, as well as possibly paying to have his number listed in the "for sale" section of the Yellow Pages.
We cannot win. Afghanistan has proven intractable to central governance even with 105,000 Soviets there and the will to use armaments that we blanch at. There is no reason to expect that a lesser number of US troops will have any more luck.
The soviets lost over 14,000 personnel during their little misadventure - the entire NATO loss so far has been under 2,000. You clearly don't have even the most tenuous grasp on either the history of the area, or on the difference between soviet and NATO tactics. During the soviet war, millions of refugees fled Afghanistan. After the 2001 invasion, millions came back. If you can figurer out the reason behind those figures, you'll be well on your way to understanding why we cannot lose.
3. I am at risk of deploying there myself shortly.
Who are you deploying with? The 901st Cooking and Mopping Battalion? Or will you be working at the Burger King in Kandahar?
Stability will NEVER be achieved there without killing all the civilians (remember, the "insurgents" are also civilians). The people in that part of the world are not advanced enough to have a nation; they still have a tribal mentality.
Ignoring, for a minute, the racism/bigotry inherent in your comment ... your initial claims is sheer nonsense. We've had plenty of success providing stability and improving the lives of the average Afghani. Tribalism is dominant in the border provinces, largely due to their isolation from the rest of the country - that's why we've made the construction of roads a high priority.
In my experience, idiots who resist arrest always seem shocked when they're met with force. I think it's a strange form of narcissism - this irrational belief that only your desires matter, and that you can do whatever you want without fear of repercussions.
I keep hearing about awesome revolutionary inventions that are cheap, flexible, and tiny. Super efficient solar panels, screens, memory, everything. And yet, somehow, years pass and I never see them actually used in consumer electronics.
You're just not paying attention. Think back 10 years, and try to figure out how big a device would have had to be in order to perform the same functions as, for example, an iPhone. It would be at least 5 times as thick. Would have cost an thousands of dollars, too. 20 years ago you would have needed a backpack to cart it around in. Technology progresses in small steps, so that you tend to miss it unless you're actually paying attention. It's not until you look at old photographs or videos that you realize how much has changed.