leicsmac

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.

It is, but then they do take citing what's in there with legit sources seriously, most of the time.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67928687 US space agency astronauts won't get to walk on the Moon again until September 2026 at the earliest. It represents a slip of a year in the previously targeted date for the return of humans to the lunar surface that was last achieved in 1972. Nasa says the delay to what's known as its Artemis III mission will enable further technology development. More schedule slip, great.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67861954 "The year 2023 has been confirmed as the warmest on record, driven by human-caused climate change and boosted by the natural El Niño weather event. Last year was about 1.48C warmer than the long-term average before humans started burning large amounts of fossil fuels, the EU's climate service says. Almost every day since July has seen a new global air temperature high for the time of year, BBC analysis shows. Sea surface temperatures have also smashed previous highs." Hmmm. Good to be a consistent record breaker, huh?