OT Re: John Esak APPROVED!!! Download the Free Blio e-Reader, Today!

[Fairlight]

>From inside the gravity well of a singularity, Bob Rasmussen shouted:
> 
> What a strange (and wrong) idea! You greatly underestimate humankind's 
> ability to damage the planet, and greatly overestimate our ability to 
> rebuild it. Will we be able to recreate coral reefs in the laboratory, to 
> take one small example? 

Just to draw a distinction...  There's a difference between provable (and
proven) human-induced species extinction, and the myth that is
Anthropogenic Global Warming.  One is real, the other is simply bad (even
falsified) science, backed by near-religious levels of scientific dogma,
all used to prop up a threat that serves to further the agendas of economic
control, third-world population control, and to line the pocketbooks of
those with a vested interest.

Likewise, if you study nuclear power...  Chernobyl aside, nuclear power
plants (even TMI) are far, far safer than people fear.  TMI wasn't close to
a meltdown--it actually suffered a partial meltdown, as some non-trivial
percentage of the core actually did melt.  It was preventable, but the
environmental impact was negligible to non-existent -despite- a comedy of
errors by operators, management, and government.  Same can't be said of
Chernobyl, but that particular reactor type is a known flawed design to
begin with, compounded by the fact that it didn't happen during regular
operations; it happened during a test that was being run at the wrong time,
across a personnel shift change, under the wrong conditions.  Essentially,
that was not representative.  Yet, Chernobyl notwithstanding, ever since
TMI, it's taken until the last few years for even -one- new nuke plant to
be ordered in the U.S.  None were ordered for decades.  This is why
California's power grid has been screwed to the point of blackouts for the
last half-decade, when they could have a surplus of power.

There's a huge difference between provable, tangible effects (extinctions,
mercury in water supplies, etc.) which causative actions need to be halted,
and scare-tactic fictions propped up by "experts" that serve only to better
the interests of the rich.

In short, there are legitimate things we shouldn't do, and I agree
shouldn't go full steam ahead on.

On the other hand, there are a bunch of things that we're being told to
change our lifestyles to accomodate, that -very- likely aren't even
realistic factors.

Michael Crichton made an excellent point during one of his speeches in the
last few years.  He said that science by consensus isn't science at all.
And he's right.  As many people can agree with and support a theory as want
to.  At one time, scientific consensus said the earth was flat.  That
obviously didn't pan out.  The "consensus" behind AGW doesn't make that
theory any more valid--and the -actual-, unmolested data shows that AGW
isn't actually a factor.  A consensus, even of experts, is not science,
it's guesswork and opinion.  The facts are the facts, and don't require a
consensus--they are what they are.

Even if the data hadn't been manipulated and falsified...even if there
weren't a tonne of both intentional and unintentional errors in the
"scientific" process that "proves" AGW...tellya what: when they can get
it to the point where they can predict the weather ahead -accurately-
more than three days ahead, I -MIGHT- start believing that 20 -year-
out projecions have any semblance of validity.  

And yet, they did a survey of meteorologists lately.  Interestingly, the
meteorologists considered themselves to do a good job if they got the
forecast right within 5F on either side of their prediction, and flat-out
admitted that they could not accurately forecast anything past three days
out.  

When places like AccuWeather and Weather.com change their forecast -for
later the same day- three times in one hour by 5-10 degrees and 20-50%
chances of precipitation, it says that their short-term models are dead
inaccurate.  Then what possible faith can one have in long-term models that
are supposedly projecting conditions on far more factors in an even more
complex system--while totally ignoring things like solar activity?  My
answer: none.  Complete vote of no-faith on my part.  I'd think it should
be the same for any rational person that gives the matter a whopping 45
seconds of thought, tops.  It's simple...if you can't even get it right in
the short term, you can't have faith you're getting it right in the long
term, either.  Why do the brainwashed masses not "get" this?  Simple
deductive reasoning is apparently a lost art.  Why think for yourself, when
the media can tell you what to think?  And I'm sure the media are
unbiased...riiiiight.

> By all means, let's charge into the future with our blinders on. Not!

No, but let's not replace the blinders with giant flashing billboards that
advertise our imminent doom at every turn.  That's just another set of
blinders that will over-steer us needlessly in the other direction.

mark->
-- 
Audio panton, cogito singularis.