2 ms·

The "shit bombardment" is the actual media coverage which has only gotten more and extreme over the past 30 years. Thanks for the link to the original paper, I

The "shit bombardment" is the actual media coverage which has only gotten more and extreme over the past 30 years. Thanks for the link to the original paper, I've never seen it myself either

eesmith 7y ago
The prediction was that the shit was going to hit the fan. The shit is now starting to hit the fan. The predictions are that there's going to be a lot more shit hitting the fan, and these predictions are constantly being checked and re-checked. The news reports first that the shit bombardment is coming, and now it's here. And you complain about those news reports, and not those actually shitting on the planet? You know the metaphor "bikeshedding", yes? The idea that there can be a lot of vigorous arguments over the materials, paint color, etc. to use for a bike shed? The flip side of that metaphor, which I'll coin "atomicpowerplanting", is that few want to dig into the details to make a good decision. Going back to the original bikeshed email: > an atomic plant is so vast, so expensive and so complicated that people cannot grasp it, and rather than try, they fall back on the assumption that somebody else checked all the details before it got this far. So, starting 40 years ago people started talking about the problems in graphite atomic piles, and made vague mentions of the Wigner effect, but the atomic power plant is important for national security and so it is built and put into operation. This goes on for years. People point out some of the problems, and its knowledge is suppressed. More years pass. And then the Windscale fire happens. Perhaps the warnings are really important, but so complex that it's easy to atomicpowerplant?
- Bantros 7y ago
  Are you trying to convince me or yourself?
  - eesmith 7y ago
    I'm convinced that we are bombarded by shit by news sources. We're also bombarded by non-shit. I'm trying to point out that "shit bombardment" might be appropriate, if everything is going to shit. Do you think there is substantial global warming caused by humans? Do you think it's serious enough that we need to take drastic measures to reduce CO2 emissions? Do you think the evidence was strong enough in the 1980s that they were right to be concerned about the future? Do you think their claims - bearing in mind the range of the predictions as in the 1989 document I found - been shown to be substantially correct? You haven't committed either which way, only to say that you've been bombarded by shit by the news. The 1989 article you pointed to, however, doesn't seem like shit. Why do you think it is?

The "shit bombardment" is the actual media coverage which has only gotten more and extreme over the past 30 years. Thanks for the link to the original paper, I've never seen it myself either

eesmith 7y ago

The prediction was that the shit was going to hit the fan. The shit is now starting to hit the fan. The predictions are that there's going to be a lot more shit hitting the fan, and these predictions are constantly being checked and re-checked. The news reports first that the shit bombardment is coming, and now it's here. And you complain about those news reports, and not those actually shitting on the planet? You know the metaphor "bikeshedding", yes? The idea that there can be a lot of vigorous arguments over the materials, paint color, etc. to use for a bike shed? The flip side of that metaphor, which I'll coin "atomicpowerplanting", is that few want to dig into the details to make a good decision. Going back to the original bikeshed email: > an atomic plant is so vast, so expensive and so complicated that people cannot grasp it, and rather than try, they fall back on the assumption that somebody else checked all the details before it got this far. So, starting 40 years ago people started talking about the problems in graphite atomic piles, and made vague mentions of the Wigner effect, but the atomic power plant is important for national security and so it is built and put into operation. This goes on for years. People point out some of the problems, and its knowledge is suppressed. More years pass. And then the Windscale fire happens. Perhaps the warnings are really important, but so complex that it's easy to atomicpowerplant?

Bantros 7y ago
Are you trying to convince me or yourself?
- eesmith 7y ago
  I'm convinced that we are bombarded by shit by news sources. We're also bombarded by non-shit. I'm trying to point out that "shit bombardment" might be appropriate, if everything is going to shit. Do you think there is substantial global warming caused by humans? Do you think it's serious enough that we need to take drastic measures to reduce CO2 emissions? Do you think the evidence was strong enough in the 1980s that they were right to be concerned about the future? Do you think their claims - bearing in mind the range of the predictions as in the 1989 document I found - been shown to be substantially correct? You haven't committed either which way, only to say that you've been bombarded by shit by the news. The 1989 article you pointed to, however, doesn't seem like shit. Why do you think it is?