The Doomsday Clock Is Reset: Closest To Midnight Since The 1950s (npr.org) 745
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has taken the unprecedented step of moving the Doomsday Clock ahead 30 seconds, taking the world to two-and-a-half-minute to midnight. The scientists said Thursday that several factors weighed heavily in their decision, particularly climate change denial by people in power -- they cited U.S. President Donald Trump -- and talk about more nuclear weapons. From a report on NPR: The setting is the closest the clock has come to midnight since 1953, when scientists moved it to two minutes from midnight after seeing both the U.S. and the Soviet Union test hydrogen bombs. It remained at that mark until 1960. "Make no mistake, this has been a difficult year," Rachel Bronson, executive director and publisher of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, said as the new setting was announced Thursday.
Meaningless (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a meaningless metric. There is no such thing as doomsday. The World is not a clock. You are OK. Breathe out.
Re:Meaningless (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a meaningless metric. There is no such thing as doomsday. The World is not a clock. You are OK. Breathe out.
Although the analogy with a clock may not be entirely accurate since it isn't always moving forwards, the concept of a metric to determine the risk of nuclear mass destruction isn't. (although it can never be very accurate without knowing what's going on inside the governing bodies behind closed doors).
Re:Meaningless (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the doomsday clock is very much meaningless. Basically it does nothing except signifies how unhappy the people who run it are with the current political climate.
Re:Meaningless (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, given that chickenhawks tend to push militancy without personal experience in the cost of war, it's not exactly a surprise that when chickenhawks are in power there's concern that war would be more likely, and that war itself would tend to increase the likeihood that nuclear weapons would be used.
Re:Meaningless (Score:4, Insightful)
Because if you read my post I didn't say it was a representation of the current political climate but what a select few people thought about it. It's purely opinion based with little to no fact involved. It's been moved forward because they don't like Trump. That's fundamentally the reason. That's it. No fact. Just opinion. They've tried to support their opinion, but though they worded it as fact, they used nothing but speculation. They didn't base it on change to policy, just based on what they believe his policy will change to. And no, the whole USDA thing isn't a policy change. It's SOP for all administrations. Have the departments not make policy statements until they get a handle on everything going on.
Re:Meaningless (Score:5, Insightful)
It's been moved forward because they don't like Trump. That's fundamentally the reason. That's it. No fact. Just opinion.
Seriously. Hillary was openly hostile with Russia, and while I doubt it would have reached the point of increased risk of nuclear war, Russia still has real nukes, so you never know. Trump on the other hand is, if anything, too friendly with Russia.
And, sorry, but I just can't see climate change as some world-ending event. Maybe because I grew up Fearing The Bomb, but temperatures going up a few degrees and water levels rising a bit just doesn't provoke the same emotional reaction as global thermonuclear war.
Re:Meaningless (Score:5, Insightful)
Totally agree with you. Those of us that grew up under the constant pressure of instant annihilation from nuclear attack just don't get worked up over climate change that much.
But anyway this is what I don't under stand. So many liberals that I know are losing their shit that Trump is openly talking to Russia. Russia has many nukes and a delivery system that will work and will reach us. Why would you not want to have a open dialog with Russia? Seems insane to not have it.
When we didn't have a open dialog with Russia in the 1960's we almost exterminated ourselves. We WANT to have a dialog with our "enemy." I would much better have a war of words than a war of nukes.
Re: Meaningless (Score:5, Interesting)
I keep hearing that, and yet every year more and more people keep moving here to Phoenix because they don't like the cold, and we still haven't had any kind of movement out of even warmer areas that can't afford air conditioning.
I could see people moving away from coastal areas, but frankly that wouldn't be anything new at all; the coastlines have never actually been all that constant, we're just used to thinking they are because we see them remain relatively similar across enough generations that we never notice how much they actually change.
And truth be told, there are many former towns that are now under ocean water. It's only going to be harder to deal with it now because we've built massive infrastructures right on the sea line, where in the past it was small huts that were easy to move or just flat out ignore if they got flooded.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
just doesn't provoke the same emotional reaction as global thermonuclear war.
That doesn't make it any less real. The people on the Titanic didn't see icebergs as some boat-ending event. Until it happened.
Re:Meaningless (Score:4, Insightful)
There's no scenario in which climate change is going to reduce the overall ability of the planet to support life, including human life. We know what a warm Earth looks like, and it's far more dense with life than the current Quaternary Ice Age.
Re: Meaningless (Score:4, Insightful)
Our current civilisation is based around growing food in the current climate. If that changes dramatically before we can find new food sources the consequences will be devastating. Some humans will no doubt survive but how well will our civilization cope with such a shock.
Re: Meaningless (Score:5, Insightful)
It won't change so very fast that current farmland becomes unusable in 1 season. Viable areas for farmland will simply move (mostly move towards the poles) gradually over the years. If we were still primitive, that could be disastrous, but we're not. Clearing farmland, fertilizer, and so on just aren't that hard. And shipping food is a very well solved problem.
Re: (Score:3)
There's no scenario in which climate change is going to reduce the overall ability of the planet to support life, including human life. We know what a warm Earth looks like, and it's far more dense with life than the current Quaternary Ice Age.
We also know what Venus looks like.
Re:Meaningless (Score:5, Informative)
Do you honestly believe that's a risk? On the assumption you aren't trolling, let me explain.
The Earth has a geological-scale carbon cycle. All the carbon in the air and ocean is something like a hundred-thousandth of the carbon in the rock cycle. Venus's atmosphere is not simply carbon similar to what's in our air, oceans, fossil fuel reserves, etc, but the result of all that carbon in the crust being released. There aren't any surface features on Venus more than a few 100 million years old. It's thought that the entire crust melted, recently (geologically speaking), and that this may happen regularly, as Venus doesn't have plate tectonics to allow internal heat to escape via convection.
So, 1, Venus's atmosphere is a result of the crust melting, and, 2, the atmosphere is the least of your worries if the crust melts!
Historical CO2 concentrations on Earth have been 10x what they are today. It certainly wasn't an ice age, but life prospered. In general, plants like CO2, to the point where, in the last warm era, megaflora supported the grazing habits of 40-ton herbivores.
Re: (Score:3)
There's no scenario in which climate change is going to reduce the overall ability of the planet to support life, including human life.
Well, sure, but how much? We are in the beginnings of a major extinction event (this is something most, if not all scientists appear to agree on), and sure, on geological timescales, new species will evolve quickly - a few million years or so. People have always imagined that we could essentially let the whole ecosystem die around us without any major consequences for us - unfortunately it isn't true. Life depends strongly on other life, and if the ecosystem collapses, it will affect all parts, including hu
Re:Meaningless (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, if you frame the issue that way, how bad could it be?
Here's another way of thinking about it. Picture in your mind the difficulties involved in the number of refugees currently fleeing into Europe from wars in the Middle East. Now, picture the population of Bangladesh being displaced by rising seas.
Anti-War Credentials (Score:4, Insightful)
"Hillary was openly hostile with Russia, and while I doubt it would have reached the point of increased risk of nuclear war, Russia still has real nukes, so you never know. Trump on the other hand is, if anything, too friendly with Russia."
Consider very recent history. George W. Bush ran his whole campaign in 2000 on a "compassionate conservative" platform, including that we needed to put America first, not being involved in foreign adventures, stop telling other countries what to do, etc. But he was a dimwitted cowboy wannabe who had no capacity for a real commitment or follow-through to that. He surrounded himself with belligerent neocons like Cheney and Rumsfeld and gave them incredible power. He spent the summer of 2001 saber-rattling at China which turned out not to be the actual brewing threat. Then we did suffer an actual attack on 9/11 and bam, within 24 hours he's freaked out and flipped to the exact opposite; global alliances, regime change, and a philosophy of first-strike invasions if needed around the globe. Before his term was done he'd started two separate intercontinental wars -- one having entirely nothing to do with the attack on us -- which have proved to be the longest in American history, and still not done after almost two decades now.
That is the proven historical result of a fundamentally dumb, belligerent, yahoo, volatile commander-in-chief. It's easy to predict; this is the standard reaction of a chaotic, short-attention-span bully. Sometime in a quiet space ask yourself this: Is Trump truly more or less volatile than George W. Bush?
Re: (Score:3)
Global thermonuclear war is certainly a dramatic, and important, threat to our survival as a species. But, the chance of it occurring is small compared to the risk fro
Re: Meaningless (Score:3)
I was thinking about the Day After Tomorrow and how it would have been a lot harder for the survivors to have sought refuge in Mexico if there had been a huge great wall in the way.
Re:Meaningless (Score:5, Informative)
On the other hand President Trump just lost all the senior state department officials.
See. Your opinions here are questionable because you base your beliefs on blind headlines from partisan sites. Then you spew it out as fact for the world to notice.
....
Here [wikimedia.org] is the org chart.
The Undersecretary for Management and 3 others under him resigned.
At this point you can realize that what you just said and your thoughts from what you just believed are really, super wrong when faced with facts, or
You can pretend like it is no big deal and that all the rest of the information you get in that way is fine so there is no need to reevaluate any of your positions on things.
Re:Meaningless (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think that's the cause.
First, let me agree that The Doomsday clock is just the opinion of one group of people. They are reasonably intelligent but they have their own bias.
But...
Mr Trump displayed a very casual attitude towards nuclear weapons ... that *is* a reason to adjust the clock.
He displayed a very casual attitude towards nuclear proliferation... another reason to adjust the clock.
He has an incredibly thin skin and is also extremely vindictive. Having a president with those traits raises the risks of a nuclear war by any standard.
Mr. Trump showed incredible ignorance in the debates. This will lead him into embarrassing situations. And for embarassing situations-- see the thin skin point.
Mr. Trump has shown incredible incompetence as president elect. He has 4,000 employees to hire. He didn't even do basic vetting on his nominees. He sent his nominee's late. He is way behind and likely to hire unqualified candidates. Based on his cabinet picks-- probably about 3/4 of the people he hires for the minor positions won't be competent.
He's a real estate guy who thinks running a government for 330 million citizen's is easy.
Mr Trump is a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. And since he's picking wildly unqualified cabinet nominees for about 75% of his cabinet, they ALSO suffer from Dunning-Kruger. He is so ignorant, he doesn't realize how ignorant he is. I'm not saying he's stupid. Ignorant means you don't know- not that you can't know. But he's not applying himself.
And he's about to set off a trade war with the country that guards our southern border who we sell 236 $billion dollars a year of product too and who we buy many prebuilt parts for our major industries from (because labor is cheaper in mexico). You know a major cause of world wars? Financial crisis and economic depression. You could trace a direct line from Smoot-Hawley to world war 2- our only nuclear war so far.
Stop cheering simply because you are on Mr. Trump's "team" and reengage your brains. He won. You can think again. Please start.
Re: (Score:3)
Considering the state of the world, I'd agree.
Re:Meaningless (Score:5, Informative)
It's a fact that Donald Trump has said some scary stupid shit about nuclear weapons. [thinkprogress.org] It's not just speculation to reason that the President of the US might act in accordance with his stated positions.
Re:Meaningless (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, the symbolic atomic clock is not just about nuclear annihilation. It also considers other threats to humanity as a whole, such as climate change. And the current US president and a great chunk of his cabinet are climate change deniers with the stated goal of pulling out of the internationally mediated Paris climate agrement.
Re: Meaningless (Score:3)
Yeah. Because when I think of the bulletin of atomic sciences I think climate science
I would be more receptive to climate change affecting the clock if the bulletin was pushing atomic energy research and development as a clean energy replacement to coal but it seems like they don't or it falls on deaf ears because the media is too busy using this change to call Trump Hitler than to report about their purposed energy policies
Re: (Score:3)
Obama got Iran closer to nuclear energy capabilities and further from nuclear weapons capabilities. But maybe you think trying to sanction Iran to death while just hoping that they don't develop nuclear weapons when they have nothing to lose from doing so was a better approach.
Re:Meaningless (Score:5, Informative)
The Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists did not change the position of the clock just from speculation, or because they "don't like Trump." They did so based on their observations of world events, including those surrounding Donald Trump. TFA quotes the Board:
Over the course of 2016, the global security landscape darkened as the international community failed to come effectively to grips with humanity's most pressing existential threats, nuclear weapons and climate change ... This already-threatening world situation was the backdrop for a rise in strident nationalism worldwide in 2016, including in a U.S. presidential campaign during which the eventual victor, Donald Trump, made disturbing comments about the use and proliferation of nuclear weapons and expressed disbelief in the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change.
Re:Meaningless (Score:5, Insightful)
It's all just opinion, you just agree with them so you don't see it.
darkened is opinionated, non-factual language.
Also opinion - what threats specifically? How did they fail to effectively "grip" the threats? Why are they humanity's most pressing threats?
How was it threatening? To whom?
Implicating that nationalism is a negative political motivation, with no basis in fact whatsoever.
More colored and decidedly non-factual language. No rationale as to how his actually rather insightful comments merit both being described in negative terms and how they advance "the world" towards war, nuclear or otherwise.
Not meaningless (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's been moved forward because the man who is now president of the United States of America, a very heavily armed nuclear power, that has stated it is "at war" with terrorism, where terrorism is sourced from a fairly distinct group of countries, has said:
And in response to this remark by interviewer Matthews...
Trump said:
That's a "holy shit, the man is outright insane" remark. Period. That's not why we make them. We make them because of MAD; which is to say as a deterrent against others using them. Russa, China, even stupid little North Korea shoots them off, then we guarantee we will shoot ours off in response. IOW, whoever uses them gets to meet their own particular sky-daddy. Or hellspawn, as the case may be.
In response to interviewer Bolling, who said, in the context of using nuclear weapons:
Trump responded:
In both cases, after he said these things, he walked them back. However, he said them, and given the usual word salad he spews, they have to serve as a window into his attitudes. You can only pick out individual remarks in Trump's meanderings; he presents incoherent verbal streams when taken more than a sentence at a time (which is why Twitter kind of works for him... he has to limit his remarks to 140 characters. It provides the structure he is incapable of providing for himself.)
Interviewer Dickerson:
Trump responds:
Let's just be perfectly clear about this: No sane person wants the USA to be "unpredictable" about its policy for use of nuclear weapons. This is a window into the fact that Trump is a fucking idiot. Not just any fucking idiot, but THE fucking idiot with his finger on the button. He's insane.
This is the root of the problem. Trump's obviously not like previous presidents. So people are paying very, very close attention to what he says. And there are times when what he says is very, very worrisome. As above.
So yes, there's a reason people are thinking we're closer to the use of nuclear weapons, and that reason isn't a dislike of Trump; it's just actually listening to what the man has said on the subject. A sane person would not make the remarks Trump has made. Simply would not. He is visibly, obviously, and frighteningly batshit. And he's the guy who can shoot them off. If it's North Korea he decides to make glow, or some little Arab country, we might not see an escalation; then again, we might. Perhaps if we fire, Israel will too; perhaps Russia will feel it needs to step in. Pakistan. India. Etc.
It's also worth noting that Trump has spent the last two years making severe economic threats in China's direction. China is another nuclear power, and they are not like us in their thinking. It is not wise to severely piss off people you do not understand -- and it is patently obvious that Trump does not understand China at all. I mean, quite aside from the demonstrated fact that he doesn't understand why we have nuc
Re:Meaningless (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Meaningless (Score:4, Insightful)
Because it's not based in data, just subjective opinion. It's a subjective opinion that I happen to share, but I can't pretend for a moment that I can quantify real imminent risk to humanity as an objective measure.
It's an appeal to authority that isn't very well baked.
Re:Meaningless (Score:5, Insightful)
They moved it forward several minutes when Reagan got elected to. In reality, not only did he not start a nuclear war but he ultimately ushered in the age of Perestroika [wikipedia.org] and an end to the Cold War.
The Doomsday Clock is nothing more than a liberal masturbation device. It's the liberal equivalent of a right-wing bible-thumper holding up a sign with "WE'RE DOOMED!" on it above some biblical quote about men laying with other men.
Re: Meaningless (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Meaningless (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the doomsday clock is very much meaningless. Basically it does nothing except signifies how unhappy the people who run it are with the current political climate.
I have to agree with the above after reading: "The setting is the closest the clock has come to midnight since 1953".
Really? We are now in more danger of all-out nuclear war than during Cuban Missile Crisis?
Re:Meaningless (Score:5, Informative)
The position of the clock was not changed during the Cuban Missile Crisis. From the Bulletin's FAQ page: [thebulletin.org]
Were the hands moved during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962? No. They were not moved during the 10-day crisis because too little was known at the time about the circumstances of the standoff or what the outcome would be. In fact, after the crisis, US and Soviet leaders installed a direct telephone line for communication, and within months signed the Partial Test Ban Treaty outlawing underground nuclear weapons testing—the first treaty addressing the nuclear weapons threat. On the basis of these steps, the Bulletin set the clock back from seven minutes to midnight to 12 minutes to midnight in 1963.
Re:Meaningless (Score:4, Informative)
Really? We are now in more danger of all-out nuclear war than during Cuban Missile Crisis?
The position of the clock was not changed during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
He didn't say they did. He asked if we are really in more danger now than during the crisis when Russia was actually putting live nuclear missiles a very short distance off our shores.
From the Bulletin's timeline page, we were 7 minutes away in 1960 (before the crisis), and 12 minutes away in 1963 (after). Today, we are supposedly 2.5 minutes away. The clock is set to indicate that we are in much more danger of an all-out nuclear war today than when Russia was putting nukes on an island run by a dictator in Russia's pocket that was just a couple of minutes (90 miles) from the US, and the US was conducting a naval blockade of that island.
I remember the tension back then, the concern that it would turn into war. It was a major issue and a very very major danger that Cuba or Russia would continue and 1962 would end in hostilities.
In addition, the clock was not changed in April of 1961 when the failed invasion of the Bay of Pigs happened, which was a major impetus for the later missile crisis.
Having the clock one third of the distance today than during that time of active political hostility and military action is just pathetic, and is an irrational demonstration of a political hatred, not a scientific fact. The clock's position is not one of serious analysis of threat, it's based on "OMG DJT and we hates The Donald...". Just one factor that is being ignored in this "analysis" is that the proposed Secretary of State has worked with and knows the Russian leadership, so he understands them better than HRC ever could. But because he actually knows them he's a bad choice, as if we should select someone who has read books and briefing papers about the Russians but never spoken to them personally.
It is propaganda promoting fear and hatred, and if it were a conservative organization doing it towards the previous President there would be a public outcry of "racism".
The excuse from their FAQ page is nonsense. "We didn't know it was happening, so we didn't change the clock"? Head in the sand. And they ignored the Bay of Pigs which was more than a year prior to the missile crisis. They can't claim they didn't know that happened.
Re: (Score:3)
Turkish Missile Crisis. The only reason Russia wanted missiles in Cuba was to counter the missiles the U.S. had placed in Turkey. That fact usually gets left out of the American storyline, though....
Re: (Score:3)
No, the doomsday clock is very much meaningless. Basically it does nothing except signifies how unhappy the people who run it are with the current political climate.
Close, but not quite right. The Doomsday Clock represents the opinion of a commitee [thebulletin.org] of scholars drawn from scientific and international relations fields about risk of some kind of destabilizing event, such as the use of nuclear weapons. It does not reflect the state of happiness of the board with respect to politics in general, although perhaps inevitably the assessment of global risk and happiness with the political climate are somewhat correlated.
It is true that the assessment of the board is somewhat su
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why don't they call it the FUD Ticker 2000?
Re: Meaningless (Score:4, Funny)
Does anybody really know what time it is ? Does anybody really care ??
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Meaningless (Score:5, Funny)
But it's a bigger score than most Presidents achieve. DJT will probably be bragging soon.
Re:Meaningless (Score:5, Funny)
"You know, they said it couldn't be done. All the frauds at the failing New York Times, they all said 'Oh, 11:55, 11:56, closest you can get to doomsday.' What do these morons know? And then you saw it, you saw it right?! That guy saw it! (points to crowd, cheering) So then I said climate change is a Mexican hoax to send more rapists and I tweeted I was moving two carrier groups into the South China Sea and boom, bing, boom, just like that, 11:58! Happened so fast, it's so easy, it's so easy. (crowd cheering) And this is just the beginning, folks, just the beginning. We're getting that all the way up, to 11:59, to 12:00, to 1 AM who the hell cares! We're gonna make doomsday great again, believe me!"
Re:Meaningless (Score:4, Informative)
It isn't meaningless metric. It is a great piece of elitist propaganda that indicates how they like things at that moment. Whenever someone is against the globalist agenda they advance the clock, and when Obama took over, they love it, and moved it back a bit. Even though Obama pissed off Russia and gave Iran a clear path to Nuclear weapons, none of that mattered.
It is what it is, propaganda, and as such it has meaning,
Re:Meaningless (Score:4, Interesting)
What O and others did, was delay in hopes that down the road more intelligent ppl would take over on BOTH sides.
With the death in Iran and our election, it is obvious that we went the opposite direction. Still, it will be another 10 years before we have to be concerned about Iran (though they WILL build it).
Re:Meaningless (Score:5, Informative)
Per international laws, namely, nuclear related, everything that they had done up to that point, WAS LEGAL. They were doing NOTHING ILLEGALLY. So, getting a 10 year delay was about as good as it was going to go.
As to the sanctions that Obama had gotten on Iran, well, we saw what happened with sanctions on Iraq. Most nations agreed, and then ignored them after some time. Hell, many American businesses with nice GOP contacts, were busy trading with Iraq.
Re:Meaningless (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, the sanctions were working..... because the was the purpose of the sanctions .
the purpose wasn't endless punishment, sanction for sanction sake, but to drive them to the negotiating table, and set back their program.
and it worked: they came to the table, and they made a deal, one that verifiably sets them back tremendously.
and we didn't GIVE them anything. it was THEIR MONEY to start with.
Re:Meaningless (Score:4, Insightful)
nothing to do with elitists, propaganda, or the globalist agenda.
Obama openly talked and campaigned on drawing back from conflicts that Bush had gotten us into, and resisting efforts of conservatives to advance into all out conflict against islam in all corners.
Hence, moving it back.
Meanwhile Trump has openly wondered why we don't use nukes more often, thinks nuclear war is winnable, called for increasing our stockpile, and advocated for Japan and Korea getting their own.
And you're f'ing surprised they move the Doomsday Clock forward some?!?!
also, as long as we're dispelling the BS propgranda...we should address the other s*** you're peddling:: no he didn't give Iran a path to nuclear weapon, and why is it conservatives all of a sudden want to buddy up with repeated human rights violator putin after years of calling Obama weak for trying not to tick him off?
Re:Meaningless (Score:4, Informative)
It's a published opinion of a group of scientists, it's their way of summing up to the world how they think we are doing in terms of not self-destructing our way of life.
The meaning in 1953 was: within 2 minutes we could go from the status-quo to a post-nuclear-holocaust world with little or no chance of de-escalation along the way. I think the meaning is similar today, but with some caveats and nuances thrown in about global warming increasing political tensions among nuclear powers, etc.
Re:Meaningless (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, except that even Trump's detractors say that he has a better relationship with Russia than Obama ever did. If Trump is Putin's patsy, why would he push the big red button?
I would think that narrative would cause this clock to back off a bit - either the narrative is complete horseshit, or this newest setting of the clock is total propoganda. Maybe both.
Re:Meaningless (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Meaningless (Score:5, Insightful)
You may not be smart enough to realize this but China is a nuclear power with ICBM's just like Russia and threatening to attack China's artificial islands in the south china sea is not a way to prevent hostilities that could quickly escalate to a nuclear exchange.
Re: (Score:3)
You're as big of a fool as Trump if you think China won't defend those islands to the limit of thier defensive abilities. The Chinese people would see the loss or an attack on those islands as equivalence to what the British did to them with Hong Kong and the public would demand a retaliation and there would be vast portions of the population and leadership demanding war.
You do not have an understanding of Chinese culture, history or their political positions about the South China Sea. Unfortunately like Tr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Meaningless (Score:4, Insightful)
You do understand civilization requires a bit more than workable stone to maintain itself. Anything that would significantly interfere with the productivity of large swathes of arable land would have catastrophic consequences for many human societies. The idea that just because Neanderthals made a living in the last Ice Age somehow we'll be alright is ludicrous. No one predicts the ends of humans, really, and no one predicts that human civilization will end, but significant alteration of rain patterns that could lead to arable land within national boundaries being rendered less productive, well, that's going to create significant regional political instabilities. If there's one lesson from humanity's past, both recent and prehistoric, is that when food gets scarce, people just don't sit around and die. They get up and move, and if there are other people in their way, well, you'll have some sort of conflict.
Re: (Score:3)
and no one predicts that human civilization will end
Lies. Coal is the single greatest threat to civilization [thinkprogress.org]. He's a scientist, well respected, too.
Re:Meaningless (Score:4)
"Oh really, is that what China is going to do? "Suck it up"? "
China's options:
Option1: suck it up, accept that fair trade still boosts their economy and live with a balanced trade ratio with the US
Option 2: start a trade war because the US is a less lucrative market that it was in the past, potentially lose $500B annually of their overseas market. Potentially lose over $1T in US debt that they hold.
Option 3: start a shooting war with the US. Face the most advanced military on the planet with 2000 nukes and 10 aircraft carrier groups and 14 nuclear equipped Trident II submarines. China brings 1 million soldiers, 200 nukes and 1 aircraft carrier and 4 nuclear ballistic missile subs. When Saddam invaded Kuwait, he had 1 million soldiers as well. It didn't take long for the US military to decimate them. China has been working hard for the last 8 years to steal our tech, because they know that numbers are virtually meaningless on today's battlefield.
"Really? It's Iran who is happy to set the fire? Not the newly-emboldened global policy "experts" who believe that diplomacy is "shut up and take it, cause we're 'murica?". "
The US policy for a long time was to uplift other countries by giving them deals that allowed for trade imbalance in their favor. With the end of the cold war, those policies should have ended, but they didn't. No other country on the planet would tolerate such imbalanced deals and the US no longer can either. Your attitude reveals your complete lack of experience or knowledge on the subject. I invite you to go and visit Iran, since you are so enlightened. Make sure to advocate your ideals while you are there, and spout off about various religions.
"Well, anyway, Mr. "LeftCoastThinker" I bet you've done well in your career and have many friends and personal successes. Your handle is great, because I am sure that you're the only smart person with all those dumb liberals there on the coast. LOL."
Fairly accurate in your assessment, although there are plenty of other smart people out here, the problem with liberals is not raw intelligence, it is emotional maturity and common sense. Typically exposure to the real world and the economy (working, getting laid off, having friends in law enforcement and the military, paying bills, paying taxes, running a business, etc.) tends to cure these over time, but these days there are many professions (along with welfare) that are immune to many of the above, (or create insulating, self re-enforcing echo chambers), leading to emotionally immature, ignorant sections of the population with a raging case of confirmation bias and ignorant pseudo-righteousness.
"Science" (Score:4, Interesting)
Make some arbitrary metric from an infinite series of divisible time units, politicize it, and call it "science".
And no, "advancing" the "clock" is hardly an unprecedented event.
And people call eschatology a dubious methodology.
Re:"Science" (Score:4, Informative)
Just because they are scientists, that doesn't mean they are calling it science. If a scientist eats a cheeseburger, that's not science either.
Compare it to DEFCON [wikipedia.org], except it's civilian and non-actionable.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If it is being presented by the "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists", and they aren't claiming it's science, it needs a disclaimer.
Which won't be happening.
Political statement (Score:3)
No "Science" behind the reasoning of what they set their doomsday clock at.
This sounds like someone's way of expressing personal disdain for different political situations.
Particularly climate change denial by people in power -- they cited U.S. President Donald Trump -- and talk about more nuclear weapons.
Climate change in the short term is as inevitable as continued population growth.
It's not too important whether people in power acknowledge it; It's going to happen.
If you want to stop climate change, then make human populations stop growing and start declining
in countries that consume the most energy per person, And build nuclear power capacity, LOTS of
nuclear power capacity.
Watered Down (Score:2)
Created in 1947, the Doomsday Clock was conceived by scientists who had participated in the Manhattan Project. Initially seen as an indicator of the likelihood of disastrous nuclear conflict, it now also includes other threats, such as climate change, biological weapons and cyberthreats.
The more stuff they throw in, the less this thing means.
Almost there (Score:3)
Yeah, climate change is pushing us to annihilation (Score:2)
What a fucking joke.
no respect (Score:5, Funny)
I have no respect for these guys; they simply use their scientific credentials to promote their own political prejudices. These people are so ignorant, they still believe in a Malthusian catastrophe.
I think The Onion puts it pretty well:
Doomsday Clock Pushed To One Minute To Midnight After Arby’s Threatens Launch Of 3-Cheese Jalapeño Beef ’N Bacon Melt
http://www.theonion.com/articl... [theonion.com]
Re:no respect (Score:4, Funny)
Fails The Sniff Test (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a *Doomsday* clock, yes? As in, something that measures how close we potentially are to Doomsday - that is, an event that leads to the total extinction of the human race.
Can anyone - anyone! - say with a straight face that we are closer to that scenario right now than we were, say, at the height of the Cold War? That was a period when two nuclear superpowers were genuinely considering launching thousands of nuclear warheads at each other; where one bad day might literally end the species.
I don't disagree with the assessment that the world has become less stable recently. I think the prospect of some rogue dictator or terrorist group setting off a nuclear bomb is high and increasing. However, the retaliatory aspect is missing: If Russia had nuked New York, America would have levelled Russia in response. One nuke would have lead to thousands. But if, say, ISIS nukes New York... what target is there to hit back at? Any response would almost certainly be in the form of conventional weapons. There would be chaos and war, sure, but not outright extinction.
The truth is, we are waaaaay further away from Doomsday than we were in the '60s.
Re:Fails The Sniff Test (Score:4, Insightful)
But if, say, ISIS nukes New York... what target is there to hit back at?
With Trump in control, I would bet he'd nuke most of the middle east: "Muslims did it. Even the ones that didn't do it, well they did nothing to stop it, and that's just as bad." Today there is no immediate catastrophe looming over our heads, but if something happens, who doesn't think that having Trump in charge dramatically increases the likelihood of a drastic military response?
Let's say next month, North Korea demonstrates huge leaps in nuclear launch capability. I think the likelihood of nuclear strike one way or the other is MUCH higher with Trump as president than any of the past several.
interesting; moves on trump, but not on Putin (Score:5, Insightful)
It amazes me that so few on the far left pay attention to what is really happening.
1) Putin is invading numerous areas for controlling them. Putin shows that he has no issues with taking what is not his. That is OK.
Putin threatens the west with nuclear war, and that is OK.
Trump (and unknown) gets into office and then we have nuclear war issues that are as bad as 1953.
2) China is not only emitting 3-5x the amount of CO2 that America does, but they continue to grow at a frightening rate (check OCO2, not chinese gov numbers).
Trump gets in and says that he will help Coal. Yet, wind already costs less to run than coal does or can. And solar continues downward. IOW, coal really can not be expanded.
Then Trump is talking about letting America export oil/nat gas. That will increase America's nat gas on the market, BUT, all it will do is lower the prices elsewhere. IOW, it will not increase the burning of it, or any more CO2.
So, exactly why is this moved now, and why is this blamed on Trump?
Re: (Score:3)
Because the president of the United States has gone on record saying he doesn't believe global warming is real and supports nuclear proliferation? This is likely to have serious implications for efforts to fight these two global threats.
Sounds familiar (Score:5, Insightful)
Midnight? (Score:4, Funny)
I thought it was almost lunchtime.
Damn!
Boy are they going to feel awkward (Score:5, Funny)
when daylight savings time ends.
Re:Not either or but both (Score:5, Informative)
"Over the course of 2016, the global security landscape darkened as the international community failed to come effectively to grips with humanity's most pressing existential threats, nuclear weapons and climate change ... This already-threatening world situation was the backdrop for a rise in strident nationalism worldwide in 2016, including in a U.S. presidential campaign during which the eventual victor, Donald Trump, made disturbing comments about the use and proliferation of nuclear weapons and expressed disbelief in the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change."
Re:Not doomsday (Score:5, Insightful)
Climate change changes resource availability. Particularly water. If areas that once had water no longer have water that will put stress on their economy potentially making them less politically stable.
If natural disasters increase linked to climate change, certain seas may no longer be feasible to collect oil from. Perhaps flooding from rising sea levels will cause areas to be evacuated causing widespread homelessness and unrest.
Climate change has upset the status quo many times over history. Encouraging the Vikings to leave Scandinavia and invade Europe. The mass migrations of populations throughout Europe, the so called "barbarian invasion" of Rome. Dynasties have been overturned in China with links to climate change, or natural disasters.
Climate change whether man made or natural always upsets the status quo... but now we have nuclear weapons.
Re:Not doomsday (Score:5, Insightful)
The US military recognizes that global warming puts stress on people and governments. Human life can prosper with a changed climate, but it can't always continue in-place. People may have to move, because their current habitation may no longer be habitable. If that movement requires crossing national borders, it becomes an international incident.
That's why global warming advances the Doomsday Clock - its side-effects on national sovereignty and politics.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the bigger threats of climate change is that it may trigger a nuclear power to use their weapons due to environmental stress.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
One study predicts that the Persian Gulf will be uninhabitable due to increase temperatures by 2100. The people living there will have to move to cooler areas, wear environmental suits or die off.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/27/world/persian-gulf-heat-climate-change/index.html [cnn.com]
Silicon Valley will be under four feet of water by 2100, as it was built on a flood plain. No one yet is talking about building miles of levees to keep the water at bay.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/22/silicon-valley [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Silicon Valley will be under four feet of water by 2100...
So you're saying there's a silver lining.
Re:Not doomsday (Score:4, Funny)
So you're saying there's a silver lining.
Yes, Silicon Valley real estate prices will be under water.
Re: (Score:2)
Technical point: unless someone was liberally using cobalt-salted bombs, radiation would be down to manageable levels in a month or two: The 7-10 rule [fema.gov] applies here.
I might also add that we've been living in the shadow of fallout for nearly 70 years now. No mutants. No Godzilla. Not even giant ants. . .(grin).
Re: (Score:2)
Like on Mexico for cancelling their meeting and embarrassing him.
Week one.
Re:Not doomsday (Score:5, Insightful)
This [google.com] was embarrassing.
The Mexican president canceling a meeting in a huff? Not so much.
Re:Mexico embarrassment (Score:4, Informative)
Tumbled? What a load of ultra-right propagandist bulls**t (a.k.a. Fake News). The Mexican dollar got slightly stronger yesterday [xe.com], and after the announcement, it weakened to almost precisely where it opened yesterday. It is still considerably stronger than it was a week ago, and there's no indication that it is continuing to get weaker as a result of cancelling the meeting with Trump.
In other words, there was a bit of pure statistical noise that resulted in a tiny change that happened to coincide in timing with the cancellation. The market didn't really react to that at all, and anybody who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves. Any trade war between the U.S. and Mexico will have little effect on the relative values of our currency, because we both rely on each other pretty heavily. What it will do is lower the dollar of both the Peso and the Dollar against all other world currencies.
Re: (Score:2)
All ice melting takes upwards of a thousand years.
What you are suggesting is the equivalent of people in the year 1000 giving up farming, metal working, horses, clothes, and roads in order to avoid depleting resources for the people of the 21st century.
Worrying about what happens centuries from now isn't just stupid, it is utterly irresponsible.
Re: (Score:3)
No, what's being suggested is that we alter the way we produce energy now so we don't fuck our grandchildren over. Sea level rise is already occuring (just ask your average insurance actuary), so there's no "thousand years from now" to talk about. There are coastal areas that will be significantly affected well within my lifetime.
Re:Not doomsday (Score:4, Insightful)
It's funny that people making this argument are generally also happy to increase the overwhelming burden of debt we pass to our grandchildren. It's a consistent view though: everything is just another reason to increase government power, from forcing action on climate change to increasing spending, it's all good.
Re:Not doomsday (Score:5, Interesting)
And you don't think fucking over the next few generations by unrestrained CO2 emissions, thus creating vast costs for them to pay for, isn't passing on a debt?
How about this. We use market forces to fix the problem, slap a price on carbon, and then we start solving the problem now. Screw the carbon credits and all that nonsense. Charge $200 a ton for emissions across the board.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If the facts are so important, why don't you present facts?
We do [carbonbrief.org], we present facts on a regular basis. [nature.com] That's our job. [epa.gov]
Problem is, the regular person doesn't spend much time reading academic journals. They'd rather get their news from Facebook or Twitter. So we've created these sensationalist measures to call attention and stir debate on the real facts that otherwise might go unnoticed by the general population.
Re: (Score:2)
So in other words, you're perfectly OK with North Korea and Iran having nuclear weapons, so long as we have more of them. Gotcha.
Re: (Score:2)
What's your point?
Re: (Score:2)
Really. Especially in the late 80s and early 60s, when we were often a hair-width away from someone on either side actually pushing the button and kicking off World War Three.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What happens when they fall out? There is nothing more dangerous than a woman scorned! How do you think Trump will react when Putin says "it's not you, it's me... can't we still be friends?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
But, hey, I can see why you would fear an idiot that speaks during election time, as opposed to somebody that is showing massive actions of what they are capable of doing.
Putin is former KGB agent. Of course, he wants to bring Russia back to its former military glory. All those actions you cited was fairly routine during the Cold War — not surprising that Putin dusted off the Soviet playbook. But Putin is the least likely person to start a nuclear war because he knows its unwinnable. Trump is dangerous because he doesn't know anything and willfully ignorant beyond his immediate needs for self-glorification.
Re: (Score:3)
Btw, Trump won the primary 1500 delegates to 500, how can you even remotely say that "a majority of Republican voters voted against him during the primaries".
Trump won by default by getting the most votes in a crowded field. He got less than 50% of the vote in most primary elections. He didn't reach 50% until the end.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/poll-trump-reaches-50-percent-support-nationally-first-time-n562061 [nbcnews.com]
Now, if you want to discuss how super-delegates allowed HRC to steal the primary to Bernie, I'm all there for you, brother.
Super delegates has been a standard feature of Democratic conventions since 1968. After Super Tuesday, Bernie needed to win every election with 60% of the vote to win the nomination. He repeatedly failed to get those votes. If super del
Re: (Score:3)
Trump won by default by getting the most votes in a crowded field. He got less than 50% of the vote in most primary elections. He didn't reach 50% until the end.
There was more than 2 candidates, so that's no problem. Actually the GoP was actually more democratic then the Democrats, as they didn't prevent people from running in the primary (as the Dems did with L. Lessig).
Super delegates has been a standard feature of Democratic conventions since 1968. After Super Tuesday, Bernie needed to win every election with 60% of the vote to win the nomination. He repeatedly failed to get thos e votes. If super delegates weren't considered towards the nomination, he still wouldn't have enough votes to win.
It doesn't make them right, or even democratic... To some extend, it actually makes them all alike the USSR' Central Committee.