Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

The Royal Society Proposes First Framework For Climate Engineering Experiments

KeensMustard Re:Transparent? (169 comments)

I'm not drawing a damn picture for you. I

You are drawing a picture for me, because your refusal to answer a simple question paints the picture as clearly as an essay on the subject would do.

If you cannot see that people are skipping the cost of fixing global warming and opting to endure its consequences, then you really need to sit down and shut up.

Well, firstly, nothing you do or say is going to make me shut up. No amount of hand gesticulation will halt the growing wave of tsunami of community anger and frustration at denial. You imagine that our patience is infinite. It is not.

Secondly you seem to be confused about exactly what your assertion was. You said that the cost of mitigation is more expensive than the cost of not mitigating and adapting (thus contradicting Stern et al). To put it into slow words for the slow among us, this has nothing to do with the choice or lack of choice.

Now cite a paper or article that proves your assertion ( the cost of mitigation is more expensive than the cost of not mitigating and adapting), or do so yourself.

2 days ago
top

The Royal Society Proposes First Framework For Climate Engineering Experiments

KeensMustard Re:Transparent? (169 comments)

Reality proves my assertion.

You need to be more specific. Narrow your description of your proof down from "something, somewhere" proves your assertion, to an actual, verifiable and believable reason. Otherwise, your proof has all the credibility of a guy screaming "A Wizard did it!"

2 days ago
top

The Royal Society Proposes First Framework For Climate Engineering Experiments

KeensMustard Re:Transparent? (169 comments)

The claim I'm making is that AGW is hopelessly over-hyped, that climate sensitivity is far lower than scientists assert, t

I see. Then what is the actual rate of climate sensitivity to CO2? Demonstrate your estimate of sensitivity with reference to the climate record and allowing for differences in feedbacks.

hat's OK because 97% of climate models disagree with actual reality.

So in fact the impacts of climate change could be far worse than current predictions?

2 days ago
top

The Royal Society Proposes First Framework For Climate Engineering Experiments

KeensMustard Re:Transparent? (169 comments)

I do not need to cite any papers for a political and economical solution.

If you can't prove your assertion, it has all the credibility of screaming "A Wizard did it!"

2 days ago
top

The Royal Society Proposes First Framework For Climate Engineering Experiments

KeensMustard Re:Transparent? (169 comments)

No, saying a given theory is wrong is certainly not another theory.

Which is your claim: that they are mysteriously right but nobody can explain why, and nobody can demonstrate the truth of what they are saying empirically or even summarise it, using, you know, words, and we should just believe them. In other words, a wizard did it. IF there is some proof that the theory of AGW is wrong, provide this proof (as published in a reputable journal) along with working. We're waiting.

3 days ago
top

The Royal Society Proposes First Framework For Climate Engineering Experiments

KeensMustard Re:Transparent? (169 comments)

To summarize - you can't cite a study because you know, conspiracy theory. TIme travelling zombie tyndall flits from school to school, making sure that no-one ever discovers that CO2 is not, in fact, a greenhouse gas.

Well, thanks for letting us know that a wizard did it.

3 days ago
top

The Royal Society Proposes First Framework For Climate Engineering Experiments

KeensMustard Re: Transparent? (169 comments)

What thirty years?

You can't subtract 30 from 2014?

I seem to remember the way, prior to your memory, all scientists were worried about the coming ice age, with the coming droughts.

Yes, you probably remember waking up on Christmas night and meeting santa claus under the tree as well. You'll have to excuse my skepticism, but I'm disinclined to accept you lurid fantasies as a substitute for actual proof.

something about fewer sunspots transferring less energy to the earth.

Something something sunspots something something. Well, I'm convinced.

3 days ago
top

The Royal Society Proposes First Framework For Climate Engineering Experiments

KeensMustard Re:Transparent? (169 comments)

But that isn't what [denialists] are saying, is it.

Is it, or isn't it? If they ARE saying something else, this qualifies as a theory, which contradicts your claim that they are mysteriously right but nobody can explain why, and nobody can demonstrate the truth of what they are saying empirically or even summarise it, using, you know, words, and we shoudl just believe them. In other words, a wizard did it.

3 days ago
top

The Royal Society Proposes First Framework For Climate Engineering Experiments

KeensMustard Re:Transparent? (169 comments)

with all the scientific credentials of a guy screaming "A witch did it!".

You mean like "no warming in 17.5 years?"

Exactly like that claim.

To me its the supporters of AGW that need [snip]

Nope. Don't care about your ridiculous fantasies.

3 days ago
top

The Royal Society Proposes First Framework For Climate Engineering Experiments

KeensMustard Re:Transparent? (169 comments)

It doesn't matter if anthropogenic CO2 causes warming or not (although there has yet to be any empiracle evidence of such).

empiracle?

What matters is the costs with correcting it verses enduring it. So far, enduring it seems to be more cost effective than the plans to correct it that are being considered by governments.

Cite a paper that backs this assertion

3 days ago
top

The Royal Society Proposes First Framework For Climate Engineering Experiments

KeensMustard Re:Transparent? (169 comments)

We spent what? 30 years listening to denialists and waiting for them to produce some evidence for their theory (that anthropogenic CO2 does not cause warming unlike natural CO2 which is mysteriously different).

Do "denialists" have a theory?

Yes. In what sense is that not blindingly obvious from the sentence: waiting for them to produce some evidence for their theory (that anthropogenic CO2 does not cause warming unlike natural CO2 which is mysteriously different).?

Do "denialists" get much research grant funding? Does they even get published?

No idea. Do conspiracy theorists and wiccans get published? Perhaps if they would if they, I dunno, did science.

I get the feeling you've missed something very important across this whole debate and that its done some damage to your credibility on this issue.

What debate is that?

3 days ago
top

The Royal Society Proposes First Framework For Climate Engineering Experiments

KeensMustard Re:Transparent? (169 comments)

I should think that any geo-engineering attempt to reduce atmospheric CO2 would have to be on a massive scale - there will be plenty of time for the anxious to voice their concerns and present their evidence.

Besides, if anything I think we've been far TOO consultative through this process. We spent what? 30 years listening to denialists and waiting for them to produce some evidence for their theory (that anthropogenic CO2 does not cause warming unlike natural CO2 which is mysteriously different). This is probably 25 years too long compromising to an alternate hypothesis with all the scientific credentials of a guy screaming "A witch did it!".

3 days ago
top

NASA's Greenhouse Gas Observatory Captures 'First Light'

KeensMustard Re:fast forward 5 years.... (143 comments)

n the basis of that data, I wouldn't bet much on what the temperature will do next. Only a fool would go all in on a prediction of warming, cooling, or stability.

So the warming could in fact be much worse than what the models predict? Talk about your doom and gloom.

about a week ago
top

NASA Announces Mars 2020 Rover Payload

KeensMustard Re:Why do we do these things? (109 comments)

I've already stated that I think space development should be funded by those who want to.

So you can't articulate a reason why we should send humans to Mars (as opposed to, say bandicoots). Didn't think so.

My complaint is not about funding my ambitions versus yours. It's about the above assertion that because something is heavily mechanized, then there's no place for people.

Strawman.

Most of that stuff above needs people in order to operate and needs people in order to justify its use. Transportation of humans doesn't make sense if humans aren't actually being transported. Medical care doesn't make sense, if there's no patient to care for.

And what mostly doesn't make sense is the thought process that convinced you that this has anything to do with whether robots are superior to humans for space exploration.

And you've expounded endlessly on your unquenchable hunger for the flesh of babies. Oh wait, that didn't happen either. If you're so bored that you're debating my arguments that I didn't make, then please, get creative not lazy.

Well, one of these things happened. I guess you can't count, in addition to not being able to remember your own statements -specifically this one:

[ME] They will plead for rescue, and we won't send rescue, and we will feel guilt, and they will feel anger and betrayal. They will starve, they will die painfully of radiation sickness, they will die in accidents, asphyxiation, they will commit suicide.

[YOU] You will feel guilt why? Sounds like the makings of a good reality show.

You said, unequivocally, that people dying painfully of radiation sickness would make for a good TV show. Later, you called people who were keen going to Mars idiots who deserved to die for being stupid and ignorant.

So a machine on Earth is magically is different from a machine in space? A gear is a gear whether it is on Earth or in space.

So, let's be clear: in your mind, my motorcycle HAS a space gear? I can engage this gear and rocket into space?

You ride that motorcycle or whatever you use to travel, in order to get from point A to point B.

And notably, my self funded travels (a) tend not to lead to my death (b) have an actual, stated purpose, that when asked, I can articulate clearly.

That would be any human use of space-side transportation too.

So the purpose of humans travelling to Mars is for humans to travel to mars? And therefore, the purpose of bandicoots travelling to Mars is for bandicoots to travel to mars. Oh. Hang on. Remind us again: Why is your plan better than the one with the bandicoots? I guess you forgot to tell us.

Your snarky attitude is unlikely to convince us to fund your death TV plan. And you should go ahead and lobby to remove funding for space science, see how that works out alongside begging for funding for a plan that costs 100x as much as sending a robot to Mars, but doesn't do any science, and has no notable benefit for humanity - apart from the opportunity to watch people die in despair. I'm sure that will work out well for you.

I think the worst part of your whole belief system here is the idea that we'll be smart enough to take people to Mars and land them on the surface safely, but dumb enough not to wonder or plan ahead of time for what happens when they get there.

Oh, I didn't say that you and you cohorts were smart enough to land a human safely on Mars. You aren't even smart enough to be able to articulate why you would send a human (as opposed to, say a bandicoot) in the first place.

about three weeks ago
top

NASA Announces Mars 2020 Rover Payload

KeensMustard Re:Why do we do these things? (109 comments)

Actually it doesn't work that way.

Afraid it does.

If you're not paying for it, then someone else is.

Someone who isn't you.

None of which have been furthered by your space science ambitions.

Not my space ambitions. The ambitions of humanity. Shout and scream all you like, that won't stop the pursuit of knowledge, even the pursuit of things that you are uncomfortable knowing about. We don't need your 5 bucks. If you like, you can sign a piece of paper saying you won't pay for science, and we'll make sure you don't enjoy the benefits of the research the rest of us paid for.

I'd rather have useful science like medicines, gene therapy, electricity, nutrition, the internet, etc.

You don't get to dictate to us on which science is useful or which is not. You don't get to control what interests others. You don't get to suppress facts that you don't like, and you don't get to decide if a piece of science gets funded or not based on your level of comfort with the research.

So suck it up.

about three weeks ago
top

NASA Announces Mars 2020 Rover Payload

KeensMustard Re:Why do we do these things? (109 comments)

That, at least is true. If we correctly manage their expectations so that they have a realistic picture of life on Mars, then they won't want to go. Problem solved.

Why do you think that will happen?

I've already told you. People value their lives. They aren't likely to sacrifice their lives for a few months of "fun". So, if they are rational, and choose to partake on a course that will end their lives in a fairly arbitrary and short time (say, 24 months), then the logical assumption is they expect something in return for that sacrifice. Reading the likes of the Mars One website, or slashdot, one gets a general feel for what this return is, they expect to be part of some great human effort that pushes the boundaries, that is exciting and replete with meaning because it benefits humanity. They also expect living on Mars to be, well exciting - for the short time between arriving and dying.

The reality, of course, is that human spaceflight to Mars is a dead end. Plans to settle permanently on Mars derive mostly from texts written by Zubrin, these are fundamentally flawed and collapse under even the most casual analysis. So any tentative settlement will also collapse. Add to that is the lack of public support. This lack of support arises partly from diminished nationalism, but also from the fact that human based space technology was surpassed, long ago, by robotic technology - robots have reached the edge of the solar system, and humans are cleaning the toilet in LEO. If humans make it Mars, they will do so long after robots arrived: so the notion that this is pioneering is of course laughable.

Human based space travel has lost the race and lost it's purpose, evidenced clearly by the fact that advocates for this activity can no longer articulate a purpose.

All of these realities will become clear to prospective martians, either before they leave (in which case, they will no longer be willing to sacrifice their life to this venture and exit) or after, in which case they will express this regret in ways that embarrass the proponents of the scheme, and terminate future ambitions of that sort in short order.

Because I'm a human and consequently I feel things like compassion and empathy for the suffering of others.

Humans also have a capacity to not feel that stuff.

That would be an incapacity the inability to feel empathy (even involuntary) is an inability not an ability. But you've made it clear that you actually find the suffering of others entertaining, so I'm not surprised to learn that you lack empathy.

You're one of those people, given your last line about "know nothing and care even less". That's classic navel gazing outlook.

So the upshot is, you clumsily tried to stick a label on me and it fell off. Ah well.

So is Mars "amazing" or "boring"? Those choices seem mutually exclusive to me. There seems to be a lot of contradictory bullshit in your opinions here.

Mars is interesting scientifically, which is why we send robots there to explore it. It is a boring place for humans to live, because owing to the fact that it is bathed in deadly radiation, humans on mars, if they ever went, would have to live underground like worms, never seeing the stars. Potentially, they could take a robot to roam around on the surface and explore while they suck in the regolith in their dark, cold, cramped, stinking worm holes, bent over a monitor with a live video stream from the robot.

about three weeks ago
top

NASA Announces Mars 2020 Rover Payload

KeensMustard Re:Why do we do these things? (109 comments)

If I'm not paying for it, then neither are you, making your protestations against it seem empty.

And whilst you are at it, please feel free to not use the outcomes of our scientific endeavours.

You should abandon every vestige of the science you despise, and go and live in the forest, in a shack you've made yourself, and refuse the evil, depraved workings of science like medicines, gene therapy, electricity, nutrition, the internet. Hop to it, there's a good fellow.

about three weeks ago
top

NASA Announces Mars 2020 Rover Payload

KeensMustard Re:Why do we do these things? (109 comments)

You obsession with my feelings is a bit ridiculous. I've already pointed out that my feelings on the subject don't matter. But rather than arguing against that, you chose to ignore it and carry on in self delusion.

Which is patently false since your argument is based on your feelings.

I'm not even making an argument per se. I'm merely waiting for you to explain why I should fund your hobby out of my pocket. A list of the top 10 reasons will suffice. I'm waiting.

And if I were intent on colonizing bandicoots on Mars, that would mean that sending robots wouldn't do that either.

So therefore, you would have no issues with digging into your own pocket to fund the guy who wants to send bandicoots.

You want it, but you can't provide any reason beyond "I want it". You can't otherwise explain why the rest of us should fund it - or you can explain it , but for whatever obscure reason, have chosen not to. Consequently, you won't get that funding , because until there is a valid reason to send a human, we will keep sending robots instead of humans.

There's no point to your verbiage. "Because I want to" is a sufficient argument.

I'll tell you if and when you've provided a sufficient argument to convince me to give you money. Otherwise I might give the money to the guy with the bandicoots instead.

Of course, I have reasons why I want it. And if I were, say, trying to convince you to want Mars colonization as well, then I'd expound on them. But I'm not.

You DID explain your reasons - you wanted to see someone die on Mars on live TV. You though their sufferings and deprivations would bring you delight.

That is not a sufficient reason for us to fund your hobby either.

Nope. I've made it clear that if people want to engage in historical reenactments using the space technology of yesteryear, then i don't care - as long as they do it on their own dime, and don't cut into the budget associated with science or space exploration. I've no problem with self funded hobbies.

Why do your hobbies get public funding and mine don't?

They don't.

I don't have problems with self-funded hobbies either. Space science for the sake of space science is just another hobby. Please, by all means pay for it yourself out of your own budget.

Your snarky attitude is unlikely to convince us to fund your death TV plan. And you should go ahead and lobby to remove funding for space science, see how that works out alongside begging for funding for a plan that costs 100x as much as sending a robot to Mars, but doesn't do any science, and has no notable benefit for humanity - apart from the opportunity to watch people die in despair. I'm sure that will work out well for you.

By the fact that you still travel, no matter the reason, then there is something that the "grip" of machines isn't doing for you.

Yeah good luck with this line of argument. Does my motorcycle have a space gear that I'm unaware of? Can you cite the relevant page in the manual? Can you cite my request for $0.5 Trillion to fund my space motorcycle travels?

about three weeks ago
top

NASA Announces Mars 2020 Rover Payload

KeensMustard Re:Why do we do these things? (109 comments)

Your feelings are irrelevant to pretty much everybody.

Pretty much everybody is not everybody. It doesn't include me. You are just arguing that your feelings and opinions should be more important to me than my own. That isn't the case.

You obsession with my feelings is a bit ridiculous. I've already pointed out that my feelings on the subject don't matter. But rather than arguing against that, you chose to ignore it and carry on in self delusion.

I've already answered these questions. A robot can't be a human living on Mars.

A robot can't be a living bandicoot on Mars either. Your point is?

And it's not important that I personally go to Mars.

Well, no, because, as you explained in the other thread, the reason why you want a manned mission to Mars is so that you can watch them die, because you think that would be entertaining.

"I should have it because I want it" is not a valid answer once you pass 5 years old.

And an argument irrelevant to this thread.

It would be, except for the fact that this is your argument, and the only one you've supplied so far, as why we should fund a program to send a human to do a job that a robot does better.

I'm not arguing from entitlement. I want and I will try to get it as a result. That is all. There is no expectation that I should get it merely because I want it. But similarly, I don't appreciate the placement of frivolous obstructions or objections to my goals based solely on petty and myopic philosophical distinctions.

You want it, but you can't provide any reason beyond "I want it". You can't otherwise explain why the rest of us should fund it - or you can explain it , but for whatever obscure reason, have chosen not to. Consequently, you won't get that funding , because until there is a valid reason to send a human, we will keep sending robots instead of humans.

At the moment, there is a tiny group of people who still cling to the pre-Apollo notion that space travel should include humans. This group of people aren't particularly rich (at least on the scale of the finances required), and aren't noticeably expanding in number or in influence.

Your argument is based on the assumption that manned spaceflight will always be out of reach of the resources of this group.

Nope. I've made it clear that if people want to engage in historical reenactments using the space technology of yesteryear, then i don't care - as long as they do it on their own dime, and don't cut into the budget associated with science or space exploration. I've no problem with self funded hobbies.

You already admitted that you travel, despite claiming that machines obsoleted any reason for you to travel. I think your remarks are just not that useful in this area.

You apparently think it's significant that I travel for pleasure - however you can't explain why.

about three weeks ago
top

NASA Announces Mars 2020 Rover Payload

KeensMustard Re:Why do we do these things? (109 comments)

However, with an experience like that, wherein there is a high expectation that does not match with reality, the human mind is likely to progress through phases much like the stages of grief.

Then this is a case of expectation management which is a solved problem.

That, at least is true. If we correctly manage their expectations so that they have a realistic picture of life on Mars, then they won't want to go. Problem solved.

For those who don't choose to solve this particular problem, there's always popcorn.

I find it interesting that you care so much about them going, but don't care at all about their welfare, and indeed, seem happy to exploit their gullibility. Perhaps this is the key difference in our positions - you want to exploit the gullible for your own entertainment, I am not willing to do so.

1. A person travelling to Mars would have to have accepted their own death as inevitable (the expected lifespan on Mars being on the order of 24 months)

Or 50 years, being another number you could have stuffed in there.

Or not, since I didn't just pick a number, a fact that should be obvious to the most casual reader.

I really don't see a claim for one or the other being valid in the absence of context.

If you are ignorant of the reasons why the number is so low, then feel free to ask for the analysis, and if you disagree with that analysis, then argue for why it is wrong. Don't try to argue from ignorance, that is a fallacy.

So having commenced on the trip they then discover that in fact, Mars is not the glorious new dawn they expected, and that in fact life on the way there and upon arrival is basically drudgery with nothing too look at and no future to look forward to.

Or they might not experience that situation.

I forgot to mention that my assumption is that we don't live in a magical fairy land where bad things don't happen. Should have mentioned it.

They will plead for rescue, and we won't send rescue, and we will feel guilt, and they will feel anger and betrayal. They will starve, they will die painfully of radiation sickness, they will die in accidents, asphyxiation, they will commit suicide.

You will feel guilt why?

Because I'm a human and consequently I feel things like compassion and empathy for the suffering of others.

Sounds like the makings of a good reality show.

You find the thought of people suffering and dying on TV entertaining. I see.

Bullshit. It'll just mean that we'll have to plan next time. I'm fuzzy on why a bad first try will convince us all that it's not worth doing.

That problem is easy to diagnose. You lack basic empathy for others, and therefore, cannot judge how people will behave when they act on feelings related to decency and empathy, and responsibility.

Science is not important in itself. It is important because of how it affects our lives and those who use that science down the road. If the only thing that is ever present in space past Earth orbit are a few space probes, then such things will be irrelevant to us on Earth and our lives - unless of course, you happen to be one of the handful of people building or operating the space probe.

Then there is no need for us to spend money sending people to Mars. You can go away satisfied, we'll get on with the science, because unlike you, we find joy and satisfaction in answering the questions that plague us, even when answering those questions has no real impact on you and the things you judge to be important. Whether you know it or not, we live in an amazing universe far greater and more astounding than we can grasp, and learning new things about it is an absolute joy. We are tiny, and that means the percentage information which intersect with our lives is tiny, tiny compare to the whole body of information. Right now, I'm typing on a computer that is made partly of aluminium. You don't know or care where aluminium comes from. I do know. The aluminium I'm touching with my finger was forged in the heart of a dying star that exploded billions of years ago, and scattered it's elements across the galaxy, where the young earth drew it into it's fiery embrace and held it until someone dug it up. Then they made it into a computer, and I type on it. The universe is amazing, I'm amazed and excited by the things we are learning about it, and your views on it are worthless, your notion that only the information that impacts you personally is important is contemptible.

Quite frankly, that makes no sense at all. Who (or what) are these navel gazers? Why would science matter more to people on Mars than it does to people on Earth?

The navel gazers are the people whose lives are solely provincial and more or less self-centered. That's most of us, perhaps all of us at one time or another.

Fascinating. Do you just randomly insert this topic into every conversation or am I just blessed by being subjected to you bizarre and randomised philosophical meanderings about people of whom I know nothing and care even less?

As to your second question, because on Mars that science would lead directly to survival and better living conditions. It's like how research on the biological effects of coal dust is more relevant to a coal miner than it is to a beachcomber or a tax accountant. People who live on Mars would be intimately helped by science done on Mars and its environment. But people on Earth would not.

So, by your reasoning, science should be done on mars by humans because otherwise we would find out things that we wouldn't need to know if we didn't live on Mars? And you see no problem with that reasoning?

about three weeks ago

Submissions

Journals

KeensMustard has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>