"Doomsday Clock"

[GordMay]

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists will announce this morning how close we are to midnight on the symbolic Doomsday Clock.
First used in 1947, the clock is used as a metaphor meant to measure how close humanity is to destroying civilization. Its hands are moved forward or back depending on the world's level of vulnerability, with midnight representing catastrophe.
Though the clock typically moves by full minutes, the non-profit group of scientists moved it by just 30 seconds in both 2017 and 2018. It currently sits at two minutes to midnight.
The last time it was set to two minutes to midnight was in 1953, when the United States and the Soviet Union were testing hydrogen bombs for the first time. The clock's hands were furthest from midnight, set at 17 minutes to, in 1991, at the end of the Cold War.
Goto ➥ https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/

[danielamartindm]

Good Morning, Gord. What do "atomic scientists" know about the politics of the world and international relations that the rest of us don't? Since the end of World War II, "doomsday" has been obviated by the threat of mutually assured destruction. That has not changed. What exactly constitutes a minute on the "doomsday clock?" If things can be quantified with that seemingly small unit of measure, why not define the unit? They can't, because their prognostications have as much validity as Occasional Cortex predicting the end of the world in twelve years due to global warming. The entire analogy of a "clock" is flawed. A clock moves inexorably forward, unless broken. The "doomsday clock" seems to move forward and back, so how is it a clock? Each time it's re-set backward is only an indication that it was mis-set before, so why should we believe it now?

[GordMay]

The Doomsday Clock is a metaphor, a reminder of the perils we must address if we are to survive on the planet. Originally, in 1947, Martyl Langsdorf sketched a clock to suggest that we didn’t have much time left to get atomic weapons under control.
In the early days, Bulletin Editor Eugene Rabinowitch decided whether the hand should be moved. A scientist himself, fluent in Russian, and a leader in the international disarmament movement, he was in constant conversation with scientists and experts within and outside governments in many parts of the world. Based on these discussions, he decided where the clock hand should be set and explained his thinking in the Bulletin’s pages.


Since 1973, the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board took over the responsibility and has since met twice a year to discuss world events and reset the clock as necessary. The board is made up of scientists and other experts with deep knowledge of nuclear technology and climate science, who often provide expert advice to governments and international agencies. They consult widely with their colleagues across a range of disciplines and also seek the views of the Bulletin’s Board of Sponsors, which includes 14 Nobel Laureates.

The Doomsday Clock is not a forecasting tool, and they are not predicting the future. Rather, they study events that have already occurred and existing trends. Their Science and Security Board tracks numbers and statistics; looking, for example, at the number and kinds of nuclear weapons in the world, the parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the degree of acidity in our oceans, and the rate of sea level rise. The board also takes account of leaders’ and citizens’ efforts to reduce dangers, and efforts by institutions, whether of governments, markets, or civil society organizations, to follow through on negotiated agreements.
The Bulletin is a bit like a doctor making a diagnosis. They look at data, as physicians look at lab tests and x-rays, and also take harder-to-quantify factors into account, as physicians do when talking with patients and family members. They consider as many symptoms, measurements, and circumstances as they can. Then they come to a judgment that sums up what could happen if leaders and citizens don’t take action to treat the conditions.


Ensuring the survival of our societies, and the human species, is not a political agenda. Cooperating with other countries to achieve control of extremely dangerous technologies should not involve partisan politics. If scientists involved with the Bulletin are critical of current policies on nuclear weapons and climate change, it is because those policies increase the possibility of self-destruction.
As long as nuclear weapons exist and can be used, the risk that we could destroy civilization also exists.

Such a calamity has not occurred because national leaders have so far heeded warnings, and because at critical times in the past 70 years, they have set up communication channels with adversaries, negotiated treaties to control the weapons, taken steps to radically reduce arsenals, and engaged erstwhile enemies in cooperative projects. Preventing nuclear war requires continued diplomacy, more exchanges of information, and open communications that engender trust.


Likewise, as long as Earth’s climate continues to change, we are at risk of suffering the potential consequences, in particular disruptions in the environment, such as extended droughts, changes in growing seasons, sea level rise, and fisheries die-offs, that threaten human survival.


Humans invented both nuclear weapons and the fossil-fuel powered machines that contribute to climate change; we know how they work, so presumably we can find ways to reduce or eliminate the harm. But we need concerted cooperation worldwide to prevent calamity.


Nuclear weapons and climate change may seem to be outside our daily experience and beyond our control, but we all have a stake in avoiding untimely death. We want to live our lives free from destruction by nuclear weapons, and from the growing scarcity of natural resources brought about by a warming planet. These interests in survival should motivate us to learn as much as we can about the powerful technologies that could destroy our way of life.


I hope this answers some of your objections to, and questions about, the Doomsday Clock.

[Island Time O25]

Funny how scientists constantly create threats to our existence then with a straight face solemnly pledge to reduce or eliminate those same threats.

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

Funny how scientists constantly create threats to our existence then with a straight face solemnly pledge to reduce or eliminate those same threats.

This sentence reads just as accurately if we substitute the word "politicians," or in fact, "people."


It's simply our nature. We spend any shared purse until we see it is nearly empty, and then scramble to do something about it. I don't see that this will ever change, only that we will forever fight the fight. As long as we are human the world can't be otherwise.

[GordMay]

A new abnormal: It is still two minutes to midnight

➥ https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/

➥ https://thebulletin.org/roundtable_e...lation-policy/

[zeehag]

merely scare tactics. chikkin little has parents...

[LoudMusic]

Seems awfully pessimistic. I think the world is not in a great way, but I think we're a lot further than 0.5% human existence to death.


* Assuming a 12 hour clock where 0 is orgasmic goodness and 12 is cold death, 2 minutes to 12 is 0.5% remaining.

[ontherocks83]

Great another political global warming thread

I don't know about the doomsday clock but I can promise you this thread has a clock on it

[Davidhoy]

Originally Posted by zeehag

merely scare tactics. chikkin little has parents...

I was just about to mention Chicken Little, but you beat me to the punch ;-).

Certainly there are challenges - always have been, always will - but the Doomsday Clock is nothing but a scare tactic used for a political power-grab. Climate change is the new "root of all evil", and is being used for political advantage too. Not to say that climate change is not real (notice that they no longer refer to it as 'global warming'), but you cannot deny that it's being exploited by those desiring power. Any anyone desiring political power should be treated with extreme skepticism...

[Group9]

We have been on the brink of disaster for sixty five years!!!!!!!!

[contrail]

Originally Posted by GordMay

The Doomsday Clock is a metaphor, a reminder of the perils we must address if we are to survive on the planet. Originally, in 1947, Martyl Langsdorf sketched a clock to suggest that we didn’t have much time left to get atomic weapons under control.
In the early days, Bulletin Editor Eugene Rabinowitch decided whether the hand should be moved. A scientist himself, fluent in Russian, and a leader in the international disarmament movement, he was in constant conversation with scientists and experts within and outside governments in many parts of the world. Based on these discussions, he decided where the clock hand should be set and explained his thinking in the Bulletin’s pages.


Since 1973, the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board took over the responsibility and has since met twice a year to discuss world events and reset the clock as necessary. The board is made up of scientists and other experts with deep knowledge of nuclear technology and climate science, who often provide expert advice to governments and international agencies. They consult widely with their colleagues across a range of disciplines and also seek the views of the Bulletin’s Board of Sponsors, which includes 14 Nobel Laureates.

The Doomsday Clock is not a forecasting tool, and they are not predicting the future. Rather, they study events that have already occurred and existing trends. Their Science and Security Board tracks numbers and statistics; looking, for example, at the number and kinds of nuclear weapons in the world, the parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the degree of acidity in our oceans, and the rate of sea level rise. The board also takes account of leaders’ and citizens’ efforts to reduce dangers, and efforts by institutions, whether of governments, markets, or civil society organizations, to follow through on negotiated agreements.
The Bulletin is a bit like a doctor making a diagnosis. They look at data, as physicians look at lab tests and x-rays, and also take harder-to-quantify factors into account, as physicians do when talking with patients and family members. They consider as many symptoms, measurements, and circumstances as they can. Then they come to a judgment that sums up what could happen if leaders and citizens don’t take action to treat the conditions.


Ensuring the survival of our societies, and the human species, is not a political agenda. Cooperating with other countries to achieve control of extremely dangerous technologies should not involve partisan politics. If scientists involved with the Bulletin are critical of current policies on nuclear weapons and climate change, it is because those policies increase the possibility of self-destruction.
As long as nuclear weapons exist and can be used, the risk that we could destroy civilization also exists.

Such a calamity has not occurred because national leaders have so far heeded warnings, and because at critical times in the past 70 years, they have set up communication channels with adversaries, negotiated treaties to control the weapons, taken steps to radically reduce arsenals, and engaged erstwhile enemies in cooperative projects. Preventing nuclear war requires continued diplomacy, more exchanges of information, and open communications that engender trust.


Likewise, as long as Earth’s climate continues to change, we are at risk of suffering the potential consequences, in particular disruptions in the environment, such as extended droughts, changes in growing seasons, sea level rise, and fisheries die-offs, that threaten human survival.


Humans invented both nuclear weapons and the fossil-fuel powered machines that contribute to climate change; we know how they work, so presumably we can find ways to reduce or eliminate the harm. But we need concerted cooperation worldwide to prevent calamity.


Nuclear weapons and climate change may seem to be outside our daily experience and beyond our control, but we all have a stake in avoiding untimely death. We want to live our lives free from destruction by nuclear weapons, and from the growing scarcity of natural resources brought about by a warming planet. These interests in survival should motivate us to learn as much as we can about the powerful technologies that could destroy our way of life.


I hope this answers some of your objections to, and questions about, the Doomsday Clock.

I always thought it an excellent visual metaphor, something so graphic that almost anyone could understand it. Thanks for the post!

[darylat8750]

Originally Posted by zeehag

merely scare tactics. chikkin little has parents...

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by contrail

I always thought it an excellent visual metaphor, something so graphic that almost anyone could understand it. Thanks for the post!

A more graphic indicator would be a "Spincter Pucker" rating.

[danielamartindm]

Originally Posted by GordMay

The Doomsday Clock is a metaphor, a reminder of the perils we must address if we are to survive on the planet. Originally, in 1947, Martyl Langsdorf sketched a clock to suggest that we didn’t have much time left to get atomic weapons under control.
In the early days, Bulletin Editor Eugene Rabinowitch decided whether the hand should be moved. A scientist himself, fluent in Russian, and a leader in the international disarmament movement, he was in constant conversation with scientists and experts within and outside governments in many parts of the world. Based on these discussions, he decided where the clock hand should be set and explained his thinking in the Bulletin’s pages.


Since 1973, the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board took over the responsibility and has since met twice a year to discuss world events and reset the clock as necessary. The board is made up of scientists and other experts with deep knowledge of nuclear technology and climate science, who often provide expert advice to governments and international agencies. They consult widely with their colleagues across a range of disciplines and also seek the views of the Bulletin’s Board of Sponsors, which includes 14 Nobel Laureates.

The Doomsday Clock is not a forecasting tool, and they are not predicting the future. Rather, they study events that have already occurred and existing trends. Their Science and Security Board tracks numbers and statistics; looking, for example, at the number and kinds of nuclear weapons in the world, the parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the degree of acidity in our oceans, and the rate of sea level rise. The board also takes account of leaders’ and citizens’ efforts to reduce dangers, and efforts by institutions, whether of governments, markets, or civil society organizations, to follow through on negotiated agreements.
The Bulletin is a bit like a doctor making a diagnosis. They look at data, as physicians look at lab tests and x-rays, and also take harder-to-quantify factors into account, as physicians do when talking with patients and family members. They consider as many symptoms, measurements, and circumstances as they can. Then they come to a judgment that sums up what could happen if leaders and citizens don’t take action to treat the conditions.


Ensuring the survival of our societies, and the human species, is not a political agenda. Cooperating with other countries to achieve control of extremely dangerous technologies should not involve partisan politics. If scientists involved with the Bulletin are critical of current policies on nuclear weapons and climate change, it is because those policies increase the possibility of self-destruction.
As long as nuclear weapons exist and can be used, the risk that we could destroy civilization also exists.

Such a calamity has not occurred because national leaders have so far heeded warnings, and because at critical times in the past 70 years, they have set up communication channels with adversaries, negotiated treaties to control the weapons, taken steps to radically reduce arsenals, and engaged erstwhile enemies in cooperative projects. Preventing nuclear war requires continued diplomacy, more exchanges of information, and open communications that engender trust.


Likewise, as long as Earth’s climate continues to change, we are at risk of suffering the potential consequences, in particular disruptions in the environment, such as extended droughts, changes in growing seasons, sea level rise, and fisheries die-offs, that threaten human survival.


Humans invented both nuclear weapons and the fossil-fuel powered machines that contribute to climate change; we know how they work, so presumably we can find ways to reduce or eliminate the harm. But we need concerted cooperation worldwide to prevent calamity.


Nuclear weapons and climate change may seem to be outside our daily experience and beyond our control, but we all have a stake in avoiding untimely death. We want to live our lives free from destruction by nuclear weapons, and from the growing scarcity of natural resources brought about by a warming planet. These interests in survival should motivate us to learn as much as we can about the powerful technologies that could destroy our way of life.


I hope this answers some of your objections to, and questions about, the Doomsday Clock.

It does not. The "scientists" pushing this bilge water are the same leftist activists pushing the AGW lies. I respect your right to believe it; please respect mine to not.