A Lucky Guess From the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
On the one hand, I agree with the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists that it's high time to move the Doomsday clock closer to midnight. Frankly, I think they should nudge it a bit higher. On the other, I disagree with their chain of reasoning at almost every step:
Increasing nuclear tensions, refusal to engage in global action on climate change, and a growing tendency to reject science when it comes to major world concerns were cited as key reasons for the latest tick on the clock.
The nuclear accident at Japan's Fukushima plant also highlighted the volatility of relying on nuclear power in areas prone to natural disasters, scientists said.
Robert Socolow, a member of the BAS science and security board and professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering at Princeton University, said a common theme emerged in the scientists' talks this year.
He cited a "worrisome trend, notably in the United States but in many other countries, to reject or diminish the significance of what science says is the characteristic of a problem."
I can see how the latter might feel like the end of the world to him, but as a man of science, he should know better than to confuse feelings with facts.
The group said it was heartened by a series of world protest movements, including the Arab spring, the global Occupy demonstrations and protests in Russia which show people are seeking a greater say in their future.
Well, I'm glad that makes them feel better.
- Comment (27)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jul '11
Re: A Lucky Guess From the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
Please forgive any inebriation based grammatical errors in my posting here, It was not my intent to demean this wonderful community in any way.
With that said, what a self-deluding lot. Do these so called experts not realize that it is logically impossible to maintain that corporations are simultaneously the root of all of the worlds problems and the spring from which the solutions will arise? If global warming is the incredible disaster-in-waiting that they say it is, how will solar panels made of toxic chemicals, 'clean coal' processed with even more toxic chemicals, and electric cars (with larger 'carbon' footprints than Hummers) save the planet? More to the point, how will a bunch of unwashed teenage and early twenty-something year olds affect world change when they cannot even self-police enough to stop rapes and other violent crime?
In the words of my favorite Futurama character, "I don't want to live on this planet anymore." SOrry I didn't have anything constructive to add, carry on.
May '10
Re: A Lucky Guess From the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
Well, I wouldn't expect atomic scientists to waste time pondering the effects of three generations' worth of stealing from the future to buy votes in the present. That would be a total downer. Especially now that it's clear that we've arrived at the future.
Apr '11
Re: A Lucky Guess From the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
It is very sad to see a scientist dismayed by skepticism. I haven't met a lot of scientists, but those I've met were skeptics as a matter of pride and profession.
Isn't it also a commentary on the collective image we Americans have around the world that he expected us to follow Science's lead like sheep (or lemmings)? Has this guy ever BEEN to America? Most of us are followers (sadly), but not all. Is that what dismays him? Independent thinking, or people who decide to believe those who think independently? A man of Science discovers that some people disagree with him, ergo their heads must be buried in sand?
Yikes.
It's also sad and sadly nothing new to see a man of Science duped by radicals and their "movements." I wonder if he understands what will happen to him if any of those radicals become powerful in his own sphere? He'll welcome them as evidence of people gaining greater influence in how they live, and then, sometime later, he'll realize that what happened: certain people gained new influence over they way he lives.
Yikes again.
Lege, explora, cogita. Quaere verum.
Edited on Jan 11 at 3:16amJan '11
Re: A Lucky Guess From the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
Methinks I doth detect a hint of sarcasm there.
Re: A Lucky Guess From the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
If the high priests of technological civilization were to stop lying to us about the findings of climate science and their supposed certainty, we would perhaps start believing them again.
Edited on Jan 11 at 7:17amMay '11
Re: A Lucky Guess From the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
When the world's soidisant "scientists" can't tell the difference between actual science and leftist trope, the doomsday clock is certainly nearing midnight. Maybe the invasion of the body snatchers is happening now, with actual scientists being replaced with Luddite pod people.
Jul '10
Re: A Lucky Guess From the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
I don't believe they actually moved the clock closer to midnight.
Mar '11
Re: A Lucky Guess From the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
From the article:
Umm...no. The relationship didn't change at all, at least in any objective way.
Objectivity...remember that, you guys? You know, the stuff that science is supposed to deal in? The opposite of subjectivity?
Is the average global temperature really increasing? What is the average global temperature? I mean right now -- this second. How are you measuring it? Where did you put the thermometer?
If you can't measure it, you don't really understand it. If you don't really understand it, why should I care about your "concern" that I'm not taking you seriously?
Start over. Gather some data (and, no, you don't get to keep your data "proprietary"). Develop some theories that explain the data and are capable of being disproved. "It's warmer than usual...no, wait...it's colder than usual" won't cut it.
Get back to me when you've done that. Show your work.
Jun '10
Re: A Lucky Guess From the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
This group has always been a politically motivated lefty-wing activist group. They should never have been taken seriously. They had mediocre marketing and an idiotic gimmick but were promoted by a press with an agenda to harm Reagan. They should be ignored.
Jul '10
Re: A Lucky Guess From the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
Folks, the disaster is upon us. This is serious. As soon as global warming kicks in again (whenever that is) it will mean longer growing seasons, threatening the most dreaded economic outcome of all: over production! Suddenly the Treasury will have to borrow still more money to pay farmers to allow fields to go fallow to assure higher prices in our grocery stores and on our exports.
I cannot overstate the precipice on which we totter.
May '10
Re: A Lucky Guess From the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
I've decided to turn the clock back a couple minutes due to the unfortunate accident involving an Iranian scientist.
I wouldn't want be selling life insurance to Iranian scientist these days.
Aug '11
Re: A Lucky Guess From the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
Actually, the clock stayed the same. They just moved midnight.
Aug '10
Re: A Lucky Guess From the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
The nuclear accident at Japan's Fukushima plant also highlighted the volatility of relying on nuclear power in areas prone to natural disasters, scientists said.
Number of deaths directly attributible to radiation at Fukushima: 0 (despite 2 workers treated for radiation burns)
Number of deaths due to a single German Organic Farm: 35 (plus 100 in need of kidney transplants or dialysis according to the BBC)
The science is settled, German organic farming is much more deadly to human health than nuclear power.
Say could someone mail me a copy of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, my worm farm needs food.
Dec '10
Re: A Lucky Guess From the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
And I repeat, from the Eisenhower Military-Industrial Complex speech, probably the least cited passage:
Michael Crichton saw it coming, and Ike before him. You put government in bed with science and you end up with a bastard child like AGW, whom we're all encouraged (compelled) to love, despite the utter lack of evidence of its virtue or truth.
And then we're the ones who "reject science." These people have chutzpah, you gotta give 'em that.
Feb '11
Re: A Lucky Guess From the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
"to reject or diminish the significance of what science says is the characteristic of a problem"
The dude is a professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering. Personally, I wouldn't want to fly an airplane designed by someone who has this authoritarian view of science.
Nov '10
Re: A Lucky Guess From the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
Heartened? The Arab Spring is the main reason I would have moved the doomsday clock forward. But these hysterical alarmists have moved the clock so close to 12:00 that there's no room to keep moving it forward anymore. That's bad for the alarmism industry. Like the 3 second warning. After you count to 2, where do you go? 2 1/2 ... 2 3/4 ...
Here's my prediction: the next move of the clock will be a 30 second increment. Then they'll start 5 second steps, then 1 second ...
You can't predict the unpredictable, unless it is the behavior of those predicting the unpredictable.
Mar '11
Re: A Lucky Guess From the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
Didn't Reagan and Thatcher kick this bunch to the curb by winning the Cold War? If atomic doomsday is advancing it is because of North Korea and Iran getting "the bomb" not because a fifty year old reactor in Japan got swamped. What a bunch of contemptible leftist shlock being passed off as science.
Jul '10
Re: A Lucky Guess From the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
Kicked them to the curb? Pffft. Left them running the schools, more like it. Not that either had much of a choice.
Nov '10
Re: A Lucky Guess From the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
Somebody just blew up another Iranian scientist. Does that turn the clock back? Or is it irrelevant, as it offers no opportunity for cheap moral exhibitionism?
Dec '11
Re: A Lucky Guess From the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
I'm a scientist. I'm smarter than you. Shut up.