What we need is a census for redistricting purposes every 5 years, not every 10. The modern world is simply moving too fast for a 10 year rule to keep us competitive with other nations. This would make gerrymandering less advantageous and hence less of a problem. This also makes sense from an economic perspective as well, since the population is so much larger now and its impacts on ecosystems that sustain it larger and of more consequence now.
Much of "Obama's" FDA is filled with people staffed during the Bush I, Clinton and Bush II years. Scientific illiteracy knows no political boundaries. Its a symptom of the breadth of scientific illiteracy in our entire population. We should also keep in mind that scientific illiteracy is also to be found even among the scientifically literate when dealing with other disciplines of science.
As of March 26, 2014, it is estimated to number 7.154 billion by the United States Census Bureau (USCB). As of April 4, 2014, the United States has a total population of 317.8 million (USCB). Thus, the population of the US is about 4.4% of the planet's human population, not 33.3%. This is yet another example of Americans thinking of themselves as more important than they really are. By population alone the rest of the world has been outpacing the US for some time. At current growth rates the Chinese economy (5 year average GDP at 10.62%) will surpass that of the US (5 year average growth rate 0.207%) in size in about 10 years, assuming they don't choke themselves to death producing products largely for US consumption.
If you want want to directly observe evolution such as trout and pitbulls, all you need to do is live longer.
Actually, its easy to observe evolution in action by looking at bacteria and other organisms with rapid generation times, such a fruit flies. That evolution can be observed in fruit flies has been repeatedly demonstrated for the past 130 years. It is now so completely understood that this is possible that whether it can be demonstrated or not is no longer scientifically relevant, having been answered in the affirmative. Outstanding questions pertain to the consequences of specific examples of the evolution observed.
Exactly. The forefront of modern morphology currently rests in establishing the quantitative functional links between particular combinations of genes, quantifiable environmental factors characterizing the direction and magnitude of selection, and the morphology defined in the context of analytic geometry and geometric algebra. As we learn more about how genes generate morphology and how both are influenced by selection, expect many more quantitative predictions.
Your comment demonstrates a lack of understanding of the scientific method. Science deals with experimental outcomes that establish truth about the natural world. Either the ideas tested confirm a hypothesis or they reject it. "Dialogue" is irrelevant. A well designed scientific experiment leaves no room for ambiguity. Science is not sophism. Don't confuse the two.
"Congress isn't "all idiots"...for every bullshit anti-science law Congress passes there are Democrats/Progressives who vote against it"
True, but not enough of them. Therein lies the crux of the problem. Science and consequently humanity desperately needs more democrats and less republicans in office. Just like difference between chimps and humans in DNA, that 1% difference results in a very big difference in consequences.
"To be fair, nobody can verify evolution or global warming in their own garage (without lots of money or time)."
Actually, they can if they tried. In the first case all one needs is a few petri dishes and various media and a few strains of bacteria, all readily available in a garage. Likewise, with global warming. Bill Nye the science guy showed a very nice experiment of the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere upon heating a few closed flasks and measuring the temperature with a couple of heat lamps, also easily done in a garage.
The problem is not a monetary one. Rather its the difference between clear, logical analytic thinking and the lack thereof. Fundamentally, both are rather simple and testable in the context of scientific experiment.
The scoundrels are particularly eager to lead people to believe that there is no difference. Compare politicians objectively and there are BIG differences. Even, given a diet of dog shit, that 1-2% difference becomes the difference between survival and death. Choose wisely or suffer the consequences.
Reporters are mere window dressing for the advertisements. Don't kid yourself, there is plenty of reason in deception.
They report what they are paid to report. As consumers of news we must be wise enough to turn to those with some modicum of credibility. We need more objective ways to keep score that are independent of the media. In the absence of intelligence, AI is at least a viable option.
With the consequences of ever increasing global warming and the consequent collapse of ecosystem, intense selection for much smarter people is just right around the corner. The only real question now is whether given the intensity of selection that shall soon occur shortly, there will be any humans smart enough to survive. Most people have little idea of what is about to happen as the pH of the oceans falls another 0.1 to 0.4 in log hydromium ion concentrations. A 0.1-0.2 pH drop is already in the cards as the oceans come into equilibrium with current atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the next 50 to 100 years so the intense selection regime is already baked into our planetary system.
"Somehow we need to find a way to promote science as a way of thinking and do so without hurting the feelings of the religious right."
The religious right are NEVER going to accept science, since science inconveniently exposes the inconsistency and irrelevancy of religion to understanding the natural world and hence this makes the scientific method a threat to the religious right.
The outcome is pretty clear, either science wins or humanity looses. The reality is that there is only one of these two outcomes to choose from. Take your pick and take your stand. One can either be for science and survival or against science and for human-sustaining ecosystem collapse. One cannot stand on a fence made of razor wire as there is no middle ground.
Purposeful ignorance is now the central pillar holding the GOP together. Vote out the GOP and this problem will go away. Fail to throw them out and the world as humans have know it ends very unhappily for all but perhaps microbes and cockroaches. Those who remain purposely ignorant will be swept away by the flood of oceanic and atmospheric change. Those who are not purposefully ignorant but fail to make the necessary change will join the purposefully ignorant. The physics, chemistry, and biology of this reality is immutable, an inconvenient truth.
Water vapor is a red herring as far as long term green house warming is concerned for the obvious reason that it so quickly precipitates out of the atmosphere that it has little chance of influencing long term trends except locally. Yes there will be more water vapor in the atmosphere as the atmosphere warms but it is locally in constant equilibrium.
It is also important to remember that the temperature at which this equilibrium point at which water vapor removes itself from the atmosphere is directly influenced by the surface temperatures. Over oceans there will be proportionally more water vapor as the oceans heat and hence more storms and more intense rains over coastal areas. Over continents, in contrast, higher surface temperatures will dry the atmosphere and drought will be more common. Because the effect of carbon dioxide forced warming will be greatest over the poles, this will slow the jet stream since the temperature and pressure differential between air above and below this zone of mixing that drives the speed of the stream will decrease. Given that topography and elevation affect patterns of geostrophic flow, this will also mean that various highs and lows on either side of larger amplitude Rosby wave will create more relatively temporally standing waves that will move East-West more slowly as the stream speed slows creating alternating patters of more rainfall/snowfall on the low pressure side and more drought on the high pressure side. Consequently, the effect of water vapor will be more highly localized.
Perhaps that 20% (more like 3%) of the scientists might bet their credibility back if they were able to answer the following simple question?
If the Earth isn't getting any hotter, why is it that virtually all the world's glaciers and ice shields are simultaneously melting at rates faster than previously observed in geological history?
You would think that even just one of them might be up to the task of reclaiming their credibility by providing a convincing answer to this simple question, but surprisingly none seem up to the challenge. If there is one, please let us know. I have been asking everywhere for a single person to explain to me how this could happen, but alas I'm beginning to feel like Diogenes of Sinope.
If trust is to be the final arbiter of this debate, how could anyone trust a global warming denier who is unable to answer the following simple question?
If the Earth climate isn't getting hotter, why are virtually all the world's glaciers and ice shields simultaneously melting at rates faster than previously recorded in geological history?
Has anyone seen or heard of even a single global warming denier trying explain how this could happen?
Of the 20% (more like 3%) who argue that the Earth isn't getting any warmer, can anyone find even ONE who can explain why, if its not getting hotter, are virtually all the world's glaciers and ice shields melting a rates faster than seen at any time in geological history?
How can ANY global warming denier be taken seriously, if they can't answer this question?
Just give me ONE global warming denier who can cogently explain why, if the Earth isn't getting any hotter, virtually all the world's glaciers and ice shields are simultaneously melting at rates faster than previously recorded in geological history?
I'm beginning to feel like Diogenes of Sinope. I keep asking this question and still haven't found a single global warming denier who is intellectually honest enough to even confront this question, much less answer it with a cogent explanation steeped in geophysics, or any science at all for that matter.
You really shouldn't have pointed to that article to make your point, since the biggest problem that increase in carbon dioxide causes with respect to the oceans is not the temperature but the acidification created by increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and its affects on marine life, both invertebrate and vertebrate. A great many marine animals are highly vulnerable to minute lowering of pH, because in early stages of embryological development low pH inhibits the mechanisms these organisms have evolved to produce calcium-based exoskeletons and endoskeletons.
Given that humans obtain about 50% of all protein consumed from the oceans, that is particularly bad news for Homo sapiens. Even if you like to eat jellyfish, which are less susceptible to this problem, you are still in trouble as many jellyfish rely on invertebrates and vertebrates that do use calcium in their skeletons as food.
I have to laugh at your comment. However, since it would appear that being someone who is ruthless and data driven perhaps you could answer a question that I find it remarkable that those who don't believe that global warming is occurring never seem to want to answer or seem simply incapable of answering.
If the Earth really isn't getting hotter, why is it that virtually all the world's glaciers and all the world's ice shields are simultaneously melting at a faster rate than at any time in geological history?
Those who believe that the world isn't getting hotter really better have an answer to this question that is well grounded in geophysics, if they want to be taken seriously. They surely don't have time for popcorn, as long as they leave this question unanswered.
Forget the "good science"/"bad science" arguments.
Can anyone who believes that it really isn't getting hotter explain why, if its not getting hotter all the world's glaciers and ice shields are simultaneously melting faster than at any time in geological history?
It would seem that those arguing that its not getting hotter or all those studies demonstrating that it is is getting hotter are just a hoax, a scam or a conspiracy, have an even larger and more fundamental scientific problem on their hands. If its not getting hotter, why is all that ice melting so quickly?
Slashdot Mirror
What we need is a census for redistricting purposes every 5 years, not every 10. The modern world is simply moving too fast for a 10 year rule to keep us competitive with other nations. This would make gerrymandering less advantageous and hence less of a problem. This also makes sense from an economic perspective as well, since the population is so much larger now and its impacts on ecosystems that sustain it larger and of more consequence now.
Better yet, lets start insisting that all politicians pass scientific literacy tests, if for no other reason than amusement.
If teachers are going to be held accountable, why not politicians?
Much of "Obama's" FDA is filled with people staffed during the Bush I, Clinton and Bush II years. Scientific illiteracy knows no political boundaries. Its a symptom of the breadth of scientific illiteracy in our entire population. We should also keep in mind that scientific illiteracy is also to be found even among the scientifically literate when dealing with other disciplines of science.
You have hit the nail on the head! We play wack-a-mole with ourselves.
As of March 26, 2014, it is estimated to number 7.154 billion by the United States Census Bureau (USCB). As of April 4, 2014, the United States has a total population of 317.8 million (USCB). Thus, the population of the US is about 4.4% of the planet's human population, not 33.3%. This is yet another example of Americans thinking of themselves as more important than they really are. By population alone the rest of the world has been outpacing the US for some time. At current growth rates the Chinese economy (5 year average GDP at 10.62%) will surpass that of the US (5 year average growth rate 0.207%) in size in about 10 years, assuming they don't choke themselves to death producing products largely for US consumption.
Who erroneously seems to think that temperatures only occur in the U.S. or North America. Globally the mean temperature continues to rise.
If you want want to directly observe evolution such as trout and pitbulls, all you need to do is live longer.
Actually, its easy to observe evolution in action by looking at bacteria and other organisms with rapid generation times, such a fruit flies. That evolution can be observed in fruit flies has been repeatedly demonstrated for the past 130 years. It is now so completely understood that this is possible that whether it can be demonstrated or not is no longer scientifically relevant, having been answered in the affirmative. Outstanding questions pertain to the consequences of specific examples of the evolution observed.
Exactly. The forefront of modern morphology currently rests in establishing the quantitative functional links between particular combinations of genes, quantifiable environmental factors characterizing the direction and magnitude of selection, and the morphology defined in the context of analytic geometry and geometric algebra. As we learn more about how genes generate morphology and how both are influenced by selection, expect many more quantitative predictions.
Your comment demonstrates a lack of understanding of the scientific method. Science deals with experimental outcomes that establish truth about the natural world. Either the ideas tested confirm a hypothesis or they reject it. "Dialogue" is irrelevant. A well designed scientific experiment leaves no room for ambiguity. Science is not sophism. Don't confuse the two.
"Congress isn't "all idiots"...for every bullshit anti-science law Congress passes there are Democrats/Progressives who vote against it"
True, but not enough of them. Therein lies the crux of the problem. Science and consequently humanity desperately needs more democrats and less republicans in office. Just like difference between chimps and humans in DNA, that 1% difference results in a very big difference in consequences.
I guess you haven't heard about the Martian rovers. We have landed on Mars.
"To be fair, nobody can verify evolution or global warming in their own garage (without lots of money or time)."
Actually, they can if they tried. In the first case all one needs is a few petri dishes and various media and a few strains of bacteria, all readily available in a garage. Likewise, with global warming. Bill Nye the science guy showed a very nice experiment of the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere upon heating a few closed flasks and measuring the temperature with a couple of heat lamps, also easily done in a garage.
The problem is not a monetary one. Rather its the difference between clear, logical analytic thinking and the lack thereof. Fundamentally, both are rather simple and testable in the context of scientific experiment.
The scoundrels are particularly eager to lead people to believe that there is no difference. Compare politicians objectively and there are BIG differences. Even, given a diet of dog shit, that 1-2% difference becomes the difference between survival and death. Choose wisely or suffer the consequences.
Reporters are mere window dressing for the advertisements. Don't kid yourself, there is plenty of reason in deception.
They report what they are paid to report. As consumers of news we must be wise enough to turn to those with some modicum of credibility. We need more objective ways to keep score that are independent of the media. In the absence of intelligence, AI is at least a viable option.
With the consequences of ever increasing global warming and the consequent collapse of ecosystem, intense selection for much smarter people is just right around the corner. The only real question now is whether given the intensity of selection that shall soon occur shortly, there will be any humans smart enough to survive. Most people have little idea of what is about to happen as the pH of the oceans falls another 0.1 to 0.4 in log hydromium ion concentrations. A 0.1-0.2 pH drop is already in the cards as the oceans come into equilibrium with current atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the next 50 to 100 years so the intense selection regime is already baked into our planetary system.
"Somehow we need to find a way to promote science as a way of thinking and do so without hurting the feelings of the religious right."
The religious right are NEVER going to accept science, since science inconveniently exposes the inconsistency and irrelevancy of religion to understanding the natural world and hence this makes the scientific method a threat to the religious right.
The outcome is pretty clear, either science wins or humanity looses. The reality is that there is only one of these two outcomes to choose from. Take your pick and take your stand. One can either be for science and survival or against science and for human-sustaining ecosystem collapse. One cannot stand on a fence made of razor wire as there is no middle ground.
Purposeful ignorance is now the central pillar holding the GOP together. Vote out the GOP and this problem will go away. Fail to throw them out and the world as humans have know it ends very unhappily for all but perhaps microbes and cockroaches. Those who remain purposely ignorant will be swept away by the flood of oceanic and atmospheric change. Those who are not purposefully ignorant but fail to make the necessary change will join the purposefully ignorant. The physics, chemistry, and biology of this reality is immutable, an inconvenient truth.
Water vapor is a red herring as far as long term green house warming is concerned for the obvious reason that it so quickly precipitates out of the atmosphere that it has little chance of influencing long term trends except locally. Yes there will be more water vapor in the atmosphere as the atmosphere warms but it is locally in constant equilibrium.
It is also important to remember that the temperature at which this equilibrium point at which water vapor removes itself from the atmosphere is directly influenced by the surface temperatures. Over oceans there will be proportionally more water vapor as the oceans heat and hence more storms and more intense rains over coastal areas. Over continents, in contrast, higher surface temperatures will dry the atmosphere and drought will be more common. Because the effect of carbon dioxide forced warming will be greatest over the poles, this will slow the jet stream since the temperature and pressure differential between air above and below this zone of mixing that drives the speed of the stream will decrease. Given that topography and elevation affect patterns of geostrophic flow, this will also mean that various highs and lows on either side of larger amplitude Rosby wave will create more relatively temporally standing waves that will move East-West more slowly as the stream speed slows creating alternating patters of more rainfall/snowfall on the low pressure side and more drought on the high pressure side. Consequently, the effect of water vapor will be more highly localized.
Perhaps that 20% (more like 3%) of the scientists might bet their credibility back if they were able to answer the following simple question?
If the Earth isn't getting any hotter, why is it that virtually all the world's glaciers and ice shields are simultaneously melting at rates faster than previously observed in geological history?
You would think that even just one of them might be up to the task of reclaiming their credibility by providing a convincing answer to this simple question, but surprisingly none seem up to the challenge. If there is one, please let us know. I have been asking everywhere for a single person to explain to me how this could happen, but alas I'm beginning to feel like Diogenes of Sinope.
If trust is to be the final arbiter of this debate, how could anyone trust a global warming denier who is unable to answer the following simple question?
If the Earth climate isn't getting hotter, why are virtually all the world's glaciers and ice shields simultaneously melting at rates faster than previously recorded in geological history?
Has anyone seen or heard of even a single global warming denier trying explain how this could happen?
Of the 20% (more like 3%) who argue that the Earth isn't getting any warmer, can anyone find even ONE who can explain why, if its not getting hotter, are virtually all the world's glaciers and ice shields melting a rates faster than seen at any time in geological history?
How can ANY global warming denier be taken seriously, if they can't answer this question?
Just give me ONE global warming denier who can cogently explain why, if the Earth isn't getting any hotter, virtually all the world's glaciers and ice shields are simultaneously melting at rates faster than previously recorded in geological history?
I'm beginning to feel like Diogenes of Sinope. I keep asking this question and still haven't found a single global warming denier who is intellectually honest enough to even confront this question, much less answer it with a cogent explanation steeped in geophysics, or any science at all for that matter.
You really shouldn't have pointed to that article to make your point, since the biggest problem that increase in carbon dioxide causes with respect to the oceans is not the temperature but the acidification created by increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and its affects on marine life, both invertebrate and vertebrate. A great many marine animals are highly vulnerable to minute lowering of pH, because in early stages of embryological development low pH inhibits the mechanisms these organisms have evolved to produce calcium-based exoskeletons and endoskeletons.
Given that humans obtain about 50% of all protein consumed from the oceans, that is particularly bad news for Homo sapiens. Even if you like to eat jellyfish, which are less susceptible to this problem, you are still in trouble as many jellyfish rely on invertebrates and vertebrates that do use calcium in their skeletons as food.
I have to laugh at your comment. However, since it would appear that being someone who is ruthless and data driven perhaps you could answer a question that I find it remarkable that those who don't believe that global warming is occurring never seem to want to answer or seem simply incapable of answering.
If the Earth really isn't getting hotter, why is it that virtually all the world's glaciers and all the world's ice shields are simultaneously melting at a faster rate than at any time in geological history?
Those who believe that the world isn't getting hotter really better have an answer to this question that is well grounded in geophysics, if they want to be taken seriously. They surely don't have time for popcorn, as long as they leave this question unanswered.
Forget the "good science"/"bad science" arguments.
Can anyone who believes that it really isn't getting hotter explain why, if its not getting hotter all the world's glaciers and ice shields are simultaneously melting faster than at any time in geological history?
It would seem that those arguing that its not getting hotter or all those studies demonstrating that it is is getting hotter are just a hoax, a scam or a conspiracy, have an even larger and more fundamental scientific problem on their hands. If its not getting hotter, why is all that ice melting so quickly?