The Parthenon was a symbol even then. Invaders stored gunpowder there because it may make some think twice.

We see this even in modern conflict. People will absolutely use mosques or other historical buildings as a disincentive to attack.

Stop them from rising or stop grave robbers?

Banned from Twitter?

> Uhm, the thing about science is that the only way to improve on the science is more science.

The way to improve is not just more science. It's better science. Something like 80% of papers are never read after publishing, a surprisingly large number of papers are retracted. We have a quality problem, not a quantity.

>An opinion or pointing out a possible flaw doesn't advance science, but may be a part of future science that advances things further.

Being critical of models advances science. It shows where a model fails. My issue is with the politicization rising up science because it fits a narrative. There's plenty of great climate science, but there is plenty of kind iffy stuff that hits front page reddit on the daily.

> But if you don't have a solid grasp on the science done so far, then you're just having opinions that are unlikely to make much of an impact or be considered unless you have substantial credentials in the field.

Well obviously.

IIRC the last like year or two, has seen a reduction in average global temperatures(i haven't taken the time to verify this so grain of salt). As opposed to the predicted models that used exponential growth rates to pollution.

Not a denier. I just think a lot of the internet has never really looked that close into whatever they spew about science, and have a limited view of statistics. For me it's been a while since I've dived into this particular topic, hence my big qualifier on my claim, but there's this strange faith like behavior everyone has about science, like you aren't allowed to question it, despite unlike in religion, science has all of their data and methods public record.

Idk it just irks me the wrong way when I try to have a real discussion about something, like expressing the flaws I see in the methods, and the discussion is taken over by imbalanced expletives(meaningless statements) and politics.

Most future predictions assume that energy is effectively an unlimited resource.

Considering their prices, it's hard to shop there.

No.

You'd have to exhaustively rule out all life.

In your trek to do so you would seed the universe with microbes or heck even those who just split off and settle down, and new forms of life would develop.

Only for asteroids we can predict collisions with well in advance.

Crashing into a body requires affecting it's path further in advance because we only have such big rockets that can only add so much dV.

Energy density of a nuke is way higher than rocket fuel of equivalent mass.

Precisely timing a device is trivial in the grand scheme of thrust vector control, orbital navigation, and all of the other control systems operating the device. Like sure it's hard, but an extra PCB, sensor system, and software isn't going to exactly break the bank.

You would absolutely sink a nuke to the right depth so that it does have maximum impulse.

We have to wait to see how the orbit is modified after many cycles to get real numbers.

Prediction was like a 2% change after however many cycles.

So they don't even have the all the data yet to analyze.