leicsmac

I'm sorry, but that still sounds like taking away agency from these often very smart, very decent people by saying they're all buying into a system that subverts scientific truth - when to uphold that same truth is the very reason many of them became scientists in the first place. It's unfair to have such a low opinion of the science corps without proof, IMO. Science changes and progresses all the time - that's a feature, not a bug. If it didn't we'd still think in terms of the ether and four elements, rather than spacetime/quantum mechanics and the Periodic Table. Was the Millennium Bug suddenly no longer problematic because it was planned for and dealt with in good fashion? Survivorship bias - or an offshoot of it. Of course it's difficult for anyone to admit they were wrong about something, but in the end physical, empirical method has the last word - as it has throughout history. And it will with this matter. There are already "artificial" food and water shortages caused by what some refer to as the "free market" and also through government intervention in places. Yeah, a future where that becomes a much more massive issue is one to be avoided, but one where we let emissions run amok and the global average temperature climbs into the roof is the much more likely way that happens. Nature is a much better killer than humans could ever be, that's why a single preventable disease killed more people in the 20th Century than all incidents of war in that same century put together. And yeah, if the shit hits the fan for whatever reason I'm refusing the call too. But that war and that shortage of resources is much more likely to be naturally than artificially caused. Ask Sergei Korolev how much innovation he was able to do in the former USSR. He perhaps would have single-handedly beat the Americans to the Moon if he hadn't suffered awful misfortune on the operating table. For what it's worth I agree that innovation has to be the cornerstone going forward, but in the way that you imagine it, it will be competitive, divided (in the way free market solutions often are, microcosms of evolution that they are) and I fear it will fail as a result (or at least, fail the vast majority of the human population). This is a massive task, a global one, and I'm sorry, but it does need unity to be successful - that is obvious to me. And especially when the consequences of something are beyond the line of sight spatially or temporally of the individual, they tend not to give a shit. That is a mistake - should civilisation be allowed to fall because of it, in the name of "freedom"? NB. Interesting list of disasters there - I wrote a manuscript on extinction events a while back that included all of those and which I should really get round to editing. I don't think that you're crazy at all. I would be a shit science communicator if I dismissed people as so, and I appreciate the time and the responses. But...one of us is wrong about this matter. I think that it is you. I hope that it is me, because then we might have a better chance of revisiting this discussion in a few decades without hearing about the biggest humanitarian crisis since the Toba supervolcanic eruption 70000 years ago and truly grotesque times as a result. And there were a few scientists paid off to write up cigarettes as harmless, and others to do the same with some medicines. But the scientific method found them out in the end, and that's what it does. Not some conspiracist with a YouTube video and a slick manner sometimes selling snake oil on the side, the scientific method of empiricism discovered and rendered wrong all of these things. So will the method deliver the truth regarding climate change, too. Again, that it results in change is a feature, not a bug. NB. Wouldn't it be easier just to say that things are going great with the "weather" and invent a more human threat that "they" can control, if increased control was "their" objective?

And when the teleprinter printed out a score with the number in words afterwards, like... Southampton 0 Leicester 9 (NINE) ... then one of the teams had a bad day.

Please don't sugarcoat - be honest. Being guided by money and/or power over truth = corrupt. The implication here is that the climate science corps is guided by the money at the expense of actual empirical fact, therefore they are corrupt. There is nowhere near any kind of ironclad widespread proof for this. Not when they are proven to be right by events and/or repeatable empiricism. Again, the scientific method doesn't care about politics, it makes itself known in time no matter what. How exactly are the current measures being taken going to bring about this population crash that the "elites" desire? If anything, the opposite is true; not taking these measures will result in increased global average temperatures, which will then result in vastly increased incidences of drought and famine followed by hugely increased global conflict over much more limited resources as a result. The Earth can easily support the current population and likely more besides, the issue is one of logistics. Those wanting to "reduce" population, on either side of the debate, are as insane as each other. You're right to be afraid of authoritarianism. You should be afraid of societal collapse more. Because that's not Big Brother controlling everyone through "15-minute cities", that's Immortan Joe enslaving, killing, raping and pillaging as he feels like in a world where the only rule is the rule of the biggest and toughest person. And that road leads directly on to extinction, not far further along the line. Tell me exactly which one of those is preferable. As bad as the 20th Century was, it carried through it the seed of hope that things would and can change to a freer, more just society - and that will be there as long as such civilisation exists. Take that civilisation away, however, and the only freedom there is is the freedom to enslave or be enslaved. To kill or be killed. Yeah, fight back against measures that take away freedoms where you can. But on some issues that involve consequences that cannot be reasoned with, bought, bullied or intimidated, the choice is simple - our species overcomes united, or falls divided. This is one of those issues.

Fair enough. Three points: - Firstly, if you believe that pretty much the entire climate science corps is either deliberately corrupt or is being forced into corruption (you tried to dance around that the last time we discussed this by pointing out "that's not what I said", but the inference that they are corrupt is absolutely clear here), then by all means, prove it. Look at scientific research history; mavericks that buck the system don't get silenced in the end, they get Nobel Prizes - but only if they can prove what they do is convincing enough. Science is self-correcting, there's a plethora of examples of this, and despite political influences, the scientific method and empiricism always comes through in the end. I'm not interested in rhetoric and innuendo, and nor should anyone else - I'm interested in empirical, solid, proof. Hitchens Razor applies, and everyone else should use that in this case too. - Secondly, any conspiracy relies on the pork - who benefits? I mean, you could make an argument for the "elites" (whatever that means) making money and power from manipulating something like this, but what's in it for Professor Jackson Pollock at the University of Hearthshire who really just wants to help people? I honestly don't get the need to paint an entire profession as nefarious when there's really no good reason for them to be so, and especially considering what we're dealing with is something for which the consequences (not the causes) are beyond human control anyway. (Much like Covid, the Earth and the fundamental laws of the universe don't give a shit about what we jabber about among ourselves.) - Finally, what if you're wrong? Consider this: If I'm wrong and you're right, and we keep on the way we're going, then the worst-case scenario is probably something out of 1984. Which is nasty. But if you're wrong and I'm right and we abandon the pathway we're taking (or even don't commit to it enough), the worst case scenario is the downfall of human civilisation. Which is worse, exactly, dystopia or death? IMO, anyone responding with the latter fails to grasp what it really means.

Don't worry guys, biodiversity will spring back in due course, as it has in the past. It might just...take a little while and there might be a few changes first.

Pretty epic finish in the India-Afghanistan T20. Lots of runs and two super overs!

A reminder: "Lynas et al. (2021) took 88,125 papers published between 2012-2020, randomly subset the dataset to 2,718 papers (a representative sample; see note), and examined those abstracts for stated agreement or disagreement with anthropogenic climate change. Of these, only four rejected anthropogenic climate change. That’s a 99.85% consensus of evidence. Similarly, if we apply the Cook et al. criteria, we get a 99.53% consensus of evidence. These surveys of the literature are extremely compelling evidence that a consensus has been reached and the topic is “settled.” If there was actually serious debate, if actual evidence existed discrediting anthropogenic global warming, we would see that in the literature. We would see numerous studies publishing evidence against anthropogenic climate change, but we don’t see those studies because that evidence doesn’t exist. All of the available data very clearly shows that we are causing climate change. The scientific consensus on this topic is truly overwhelming."

This has generated a bit of discussion since it was posted. I would echo @Lionator point that nations all have very, very specific regs about situations when nuclear release is authorised - even the more "insane" ones like the NK's. But that being said, I do think it would be very scarily easy for such situations to perhaps arise in a variety of places given the current global situation. A nuclear attack by the NK's on Seoul or by China on Taiwan, for instance - or even an overwhelming conventional attack - would be answered with at least a withering conventional response that could bring great powers forces into direct conflict with each other, and at most with nuclear exchange happening right away. WRT the "legacy" question, I wonder what these people think about how they'll be remembered - surely they must know that it would be better for their legacy to be remembered as someone who "didn't have an impact" as opposed to "the one who started the death of modern civilisation".

Yeah, can understand the brinksmanship argument and it could well be accurate. I'm just trying to think of a scenario where NATO and Russian forces engage in direct combat on a reasonably sized scale that doesn't then escalate to a very awful place. Hopefully things never even get to that stage of skirmish.

True, should always plan for worst case events, even if they are improbable. Speaking personally though, you'd think that everyone vaguely familiar with such game theory over the last 70 years knows where such escalation inevitably ends. And you'd also think that in that topic, self preservation would kick into the mind of even the most brutal "strongman" like Putin.

Not that anyone can know what's going on inside the mans head, but does Putin really think attacking a NATO member has any chance of a net positive outcome for him and his nation? I guess events in November 2024 in the US will have a large part to play there, yes.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/2024/01/15/the-climate-optimists-fighting-back-against-the-doomers/ Don't just read the headline, and certainly don't read the ridiculous denial-of-the-laws-of-thermodynamics comments, the actual article itself is fair. Fatalism helps no one.

https://www.ft.com/content/ed4b352b-5c06-4f8d-9df7-1b1f9fecb269 Donald Trump is planning to gut US President Joe Biden’s landmark climate law, increase investment in fossil fuels and roll back regulations aimed at accelerating the transition to electric vehicles if he is elected next year. Senior campaign officials and advisers to the former president said he would seek to radically overhaul US climate and energy policy to “maximise fossil fuel production” during a second term. @David Oldfields Gate, if I may, this is probably the main reason why an endorsement of Trump is... let's say, perhaps unwise.

A lot of very awful diseases. World warfare. High degree institutionalised racism and sexism. Outdoor toilets.

Landlines in homes.

Interesting first round matchup right now, Gasquet-Alcaraz. Gasquet made his Grand Slam debut before Alcaraz was born.

Today was a free hit anyway, and considering the group they're in Tigers have done pretty well so far.

Unfortunately, that's something that will never be universally agreed upon and so neither will what would be a proportionate response. I'm more concerned with the implication made by some that there should be no consequences of meaning at all. Speaking personally, if I were his employer I wouldn't take drastic action, but as said above, I wouldn't really shed a tear or look to defend the guy if his employer decided to be drastic, either. NB. With Gervais, he punches down but you can tell it comes from a desire to shock in the name of humour and everyone is targeted. With some of these comments, I'm not sure humour is the objective here, rather seeking to cause deliberate harm. The two are different, and given the sometimes tribal nature of football you can't assume they're all one offs, either.

Yep. There's too many people out there who think freedom of speech/action also means freedom from consequences... when in fact the freedom to suffer those consequences is the freedom upon which all the others are based.

Yep. Only way to beat the system is to be luckier, smarter, or cheat. The second isn't going to happen, the last will more likely land you in big trouble as it will make you rich, so it's down to the first.

Matterface is terrible for it too.

Ronnie pretty clearly has issues with his mental health. Add to that the propensity for a sporting character to gain a rather fanatical fanbase, and we have what's going on here. I wonder what it is that makes those at the very top of their skill be subject to so many personal demons? Bobby Fischer was the same.

I'm interested in this viewpoint; can you elaborate at all?

That being said, I would allow myself a smile at SpaceX having gone from practically zilch to routine successful launches almost every day in the space of a few years. Shows that such developments can happen fast when the will and resources are there.

From nothing to man on the moon in less than a decade is unbelievable, yes. I wish we still had the focus and the resources to do similar at a similar pace now.