8 Million Year Old Bacteria Thaws, Lives 345
Jamie found a New Scientist story about 8 million year old bacteria that scientists thawed out, and now it's alive. Also somehow they are sure that this is safe. The interesting bit is that since these samples came from ancient ice, it seems that the world will naturally be filled with these guys soon.
Tons of ice thaw naturally all the time (Score:3, Insightful)
Summary dies, needs resusitation. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing to see here, move along.
everybody panic (Score:2, Insightful)
They don't point out that in the last 8 million years the earth has been much warmer than it is today, at many different times.
At least they didn't break out the OMG its humans driving SUVs stuff. Still though, it seems like an article with an agenda. Just report about the bacteria, kthx.
Mars! (Score:5, Insightful)
Paranoid Much? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you are going to worry about bacteria, worry about the stuff that is now actively learning how to resist all of our antibiotics and hanging out in our hostpitals, not the stuff that hasn't encountered it before. You might as well blame Bush or AlQueda and claim we need to nuke the ice sheets to stop this while you are at it.
Re:Typical misleading summary... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Typical misleading summary... (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed.
But there is no possibility of real discussions so long as one party to the discussions refuses to acknowledge that there is a potential problem. The preponderance of evidence says that global warming is happening and that it is anthropogenic.
What should be done about that? Anything?
Who knows... there hasn't been an opportunity to discuss that. Instead, all of the efforts made by the non-fanatics has been focused on attempting to educate the large proportion of the population who are sadly actively working at remaining ignorant in an attempt to completely ignore the issue by denying that there is an issue.
If you really want real discussion, then work at getting people to admit that global warming exists. Until that happens there can't be any discussion of what actions to take, or even if we should take any action at all.
Re:Summary dies, needs resusitation. (Score:2, Insightful)
The big difference is: it happens thousands of miles away from normal people and anything released is just as likely to be reabsorbed by the fresh polar snow/ocean.
I can spray tonnes of a toxin at the northpole and people around the world would be safe, but if I try the same thing in a major city I would be shot.
Re:Typical misleading summary... (Score:4, Insightful)
So, by the same token, murder is no worse than someone falling off a ladder.
Should we let the murderer go free, then?
Re:You're right (Score:3, Insightful)
-Peter
Re:Typical misleading summary... (Score:4, Insightful)
And I think that what you said there supports his whole point, that one party refuses to acknowledge that there may not be a problem.
He never denied that climate change is hapening, nor that we aren't contributing to it. Enough with the strawmen, and respond to what he actually said next time.
Re:Typical misleading summary... (Score:3, Insightful)
You can have situations where murder would be acceptable.
Re:truly amazing (Score:2, Insightful)
are you bulgarian or something?
Re:Shrug. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Typical misleading summary... (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong Focus (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Typical misleading summary... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not saying we should just chug along blindly and not do anything. Though I'm still not convinced that man is the primary force behind the current noticed changes (or even that these changes will continue long-term), I still support most environmental efforts--cutting emissions and such certainly can't harm the situation, and definately would help clean out the smong and all that. But I think those who put forth the above reasoning are shooting themselves in the proverbial foot; the more irrational your argument is, the less likely people are to take you seriously. And the attitude of "this is the Truth, and anything you say is Lies" without solid proof just makes it worse. It's no better than the crazy homeless guy on the corner with a sign saying "The end is near!" harassing pedestrians and telling them they're going to hell.
Re:Typical misleading summary... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't give a shit about politics, about Al Gore, about Green Peace or a pack of greasy university kids marching to save the planet. What I do care about is that the vast majority of climatologists, while rejecting some of the doomsday notions of the activists, state very clearly that the evidence for climate change being caused by human activities is compelling and growing. To call these scientists "political" is nothing more than an invokation of a conspiracy theory.
Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also somehow they are sure that this is safe.
Everything to which the bacteria had adapted is 8 million years dead.
Poor little feller... :(
Re:Typical misleading summary... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that was the popular opinion. In the 1400s, most scientists believed the Earth was round. I think you unintentionally drew a parallel.
Re:Typical misleading summary... (Score:3, Insightful)
To be more specific, I know that you only get out of a computer model what you put into it. Period. That leaves a lot of room for uncertainty.
But I'll make you a deal; find me a model that starts from a base state in (say) 1800, and then accurately models regional temperatures and storms year-by-year. If you have such a model, and then choose to run it forward a few decades, I would be happy to entertain that as solid evidence.
I would also be amazingly impressed.
-Jeff
Re:Typical misleading summary... (Score:3, Insightful)
There is only the value that you (and/or society) assigns to the event.
That's what the OP and GP are trying to get across.
Gold cannot intrinsically be defined as better or worse than titanium.
Snow cannot intrinsically be defined as better or worse than rain.
Kosher cannot intrinsically be defined as better or worse than Halal.
Country cannot intrinsically be defined as better or worse than Emo.
Artificial change cannot intrinsically be defined as better or worse than natural change.
That is why "you cannot use absolutes to define one type as worse or better than the other," because values differ. Maybe you used a poor example, but I suspect you were just making an appeal to emotion.
Re:Typical misleading summary... (Score:3, Insightful)