I imagine all this becomes moot as we get self driving cars. Heck, there are a bunch of cars, down to Subaru and Dodge price ranges with camera or radar based pre-collision braking and warnings that will mitigate this as well.
Technology will route around the problem. It's still stupid to create this problem though.
Funny, because the science that I learned about in college was ALL ABOUT being constantly questioned.
Presumably they mentioned at your place of learning that to question science you need to use science, not superstition: e.g. "I don't trust this science because that scientists has a beard and he might be a hippy"
When climate alarmists stop pretending that the dispute is over the degree of human influence on climate, and how much different countries should spend to mitigate anthropogenic climate change (or other kinds!), they might start to get traction with skeptics. Also when they start acting like the situation is as bad as they claim it is.
Funny how the view of 'the dispute' is so inconsistent. You say the dispute is not about the science, yet there are denialists posting in this very thread who say that it IS: this guy , or this guy or this guy. You guys need to sit down and nut and what it is, exactly, that you have against the more commonly held position on climate. At the moment, you look like clowns.
I know that when I used an electric sous vide cooker to make pork chops for dinner last night, it was worse for the climate than if I ate raw vegetables, and better than if I grilled a slab of steak over a bonfire. I know that living in the suburbs emits more greenhouse gases than living in a tiny apartment in a big city. I am thoroughly unconvinced that forcing most people to live like the alarmists claim we should (but usually don't live themselves) will yield the claimed benefits, or be worth the costs even if the benefits would be as claimed.
If I wanted to classify your position I would call it "superstition". It is, essentially a belief that climate change is about good people and bad people. Various (curiously unnamed) people you claim are "alarmists" and are hyprocritical, and therefore the scientific basis of their position is wrong. One would think that if the science of mitigation were actually wrong, if the economic model was wrong, that you could find and demonstrate those flaws, rather than engage in bone pointing ceremonies.
Not only the data and the conclusions, the models themselves. If you use a model to analyze the data and draw some conclusions from it and this model is unable to predict phenomena correctly you can certainly become skeptic about the conclusions you drawn from it.
What phenomena?
Recently, many models were put exactly in that position.
Which models?
Calling everyone a denier because he/she express some doubts about the conclusions of a model without any decent prediction capability is certainly an abuse of language and even bullying toward legitimate skepticism.
That is not the denier position. The denier position is that a (pre-supposed) lack of correlation between model predictions and observed climate means that we can continue dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and nothing significant will happen. The deniers would have us accept their predictions about climate sensitivity whilst simultaneously claiming that science is insufficient to make predictions. The denier claim (that adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will not cause significant warming) is something that ought to be handled with healthy scepticism.
Because what a lack of correlation actually means is that we can't predict what will happen if we continue our buildup of atmospheric CO2. We know there will be some effect (by thermodynamics) but can't predict the scope of it. The only logical conclusion is that to avoid potential disaster we need to stop doing that. Right Now.
If the model deniers are right and there is no correlation then what they are really saying is that we must take immediate action to mitigate the risk of disastrous warming.
Use a better bank? Maybe use Ally for instance . . . everything except initiating wire transfers is free as far as I can tell.
All that is needed for manned exploration of the solar system is a transport spaceship,
Incorrect.
But of course, the fact that this government has announced an intent to do this is almost certain death for the idea. They are so disorganised and so incompetent that they could never get it done.
Its just as valid to claim from that basis that Africans are smarter than Europeans. After all, the data did not rule that out.
More generally, he stated that there is no actual data to support the notion that race does not contribute to intelligence, making a specific reference to Africans, and which happens to be a politically incorrect notion, but is still an accurate statement.
So he is saying that Africans are more intelligent than Europeans?
That climate science, to date, has been poor at prognostication is indisputably true.
Actually the point of this discussion is that the statement One must note that environmental science is best at observation, and typically poor at prognostication. is in fact unsubstantiated. Simply repeating that assertion multiple times does not substantiate it.
For science to work you must be able to state an unpopular opinion and not get slaughtered for it.
No. You need to be able to present your research without being slaughtered for it. When it comes to opinion, scientists have the same rights and are subject to the same criticisms as anybody else.
How many white people do you see in professional sports?
Heaps.
Cricket, for instance, is dominated by white guys in Australia and England. On the other hand, India, Pakistan and the West Indies have very strong teams - why? Because cricket favours places where kids can play the game in the street. Genetics don't enter into it.
Another example: Aussie Rules versus Rugby. Aussie Rules has a disproportionate number of Aboriginal players, whereas Rugby (in Australia/NZ) is dominated by Maoris and Islanders (Samoans, Vanuatans etc). Are Aboriginals genetically pre-disposed toward Aussie Rules, or is it actually because they grow up playing and loving Aussies Rules (Whereas Samoans grow up loving and playing rugby)?
Describe SPECIFICALLY what it is that humans can do better than robots in the vacuum of space : And I don't mean meaningless tripe, I mean practical tasks to do with the point of going into space: to explore. Show how the need to perform this task justifies the extra expense associated.
[no response]
I take it from you lack of response that you cannot think of anything?
It would help if you actually read what I wrote:
Here is what you wrote: Deep sea drilling even has divers that go underwater for weeks at a time for critical repairs... doing things that are enormously expensive and even approaching costs for sending astronauts into space. I've highlighted the section that caught my eye. How much does going underwater cost? I couldn't find any figures related to the costs of divers going underwater to repair deep sea drilling rigs. I did uncover the cost of James Camerons DeepSea challenge (http://deepseanews.com/2012/04/shouldnt-we-be-more-skeptical-of-the-deepchallenger-dive/) which works out around 5 million dollars. I'm sure you would agree that 5 million dollars a person would not get you to LEO, let alone beyond LEO (which, thanks to the necessary delta V) starts at a floor 10x that of LEO.
In short, I was being generous.
Since you got this so wrong, I need not reply any further.
You don't get to decide.
The one day you'd sell your soul for something, souls are a glut.
