Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:disclosure (Score 1) 448

The science will speak for itself.

Indeed. Willie Soon's papers have resulted in the resignation of more than one editor and have been described as "laughable". One of his industry "deliverables" was a literature review that misrepresented the literature to create "a policy–and politics–driven publicity stunt to support the dubious positions on climate change of some prominent American politicians." Several editors resigned over the fiasco. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

Comment Good question, not answered: (Score 4, Insightful) 116

The wording is sufficiently vague to permit a Canadian Security Intelligence Service investigation of anyone who challenges the Conservatives' social, economic or environmental policies, the Opposition leader said during the daily question period.

"What's to stop this bill from being used to spy on the government's political enemies?"

Prime Minister Stephen Harper dismissed the suggestion, telling the House of Commons the NDP had entered the realm of conspiracy theory.

"That's what we've come to expect from the black helicopter fleet over there." - http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/poli...

Comment Re:About time. (Score 1) 309

In the first IPCC report, nuclear was considered the answer to AGW. Now it is considered something that should be minimized.

I don't see that. Nuclear is still seen as essential:

“No single mitigation option in the energy supply sector will be sufficient,” the report warns. “Achieving deep cuts [in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions] will require more intensive use of low-GHG technologies such as renewable energy, nuclear energy, and CCS.”

From TFA: "Most important, the report’s scenarios show how nuclear power boosts de-carbonization efforts. To stabilize the climate at an average global surface temperature no higher than 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level, scenarios without nuclear expansion would require global energy supply to be radically curtailed below currently projected demand. With an expansion of nuclear power, however, the climate could be stabilized with far more modest efficiencies."

Submission + - Sydney Uni to divest from fossil fuels, as global momentum builds (reneweconomy.com.au)

mdsolar writes: The University of Sydney has revealed its plans to begin divesting from heavy-polluting and fossil fuel companies, in an effort to cut the carbon footprint of its investment portfolio by 20 per cent in three years.

The partial divestment plan, released by the University on Monday, brings it in line with a growing number of tertiary, religious and other organizations around the world that have divested over $50 billion in fossil fuel stocks for reasons both environmental and economic – that is, their business models are incompatible with the pledge by the world’s governments to tackle global warming.

Submission + - Climate Scientist Wins Defamation Suit Against National Post (huffingtonpost.ca)

Layzej writes: A leading Canadian climate scientist has been awarded $50,000 in a defamation suit against The National Post newspaper. Andrew Weaver sued the Post over four articles published between December 2009 and February 2010. The articles contain “grossly irresponsible falsehoods that have gone viral on the Internet,” and they “poison” the debate over climate change, Weaver asserted in a statement at the time the suit was filed.

The judge agreed, concluding “the defendants have been careless or indifferent to the accuracy of the facts. As evident from the testimony of the defendants, they were more interested in espousing a particular view than assessing the accuracy of the facts.”

This is the first of several law suits launched by climate scientists against journalists who have published alleged libels and falsehoods. Climate scientist Ben Santer suggests the following explanation for these types of defamations: "if you can’t attack the underlying science, you go after the scientist.”

Comment How bad is Forbes reporting? (Score 2) 481

Similarly, Forbes relies on the Heartland Institute's James Taylor (also not a scientist) to report on climate change. How bad is the Forbes reporting? Well, in an August 2012 interview, I correctly stated that in a warming world, hurricane intensity can increase and these increases are being observed. Also, rainfall, storm surge, and storm size can be affected.

In response, Mr. Taylor attacked me and discussed the frequency of landfalling U.S. hurricanes, as if the two were the same. Obviously, he either misunderstood my comments or does not have the knowledge to interpret them. When I asked for the right to rebut Mr. Taylor, what did I hear? Crickets. Did Forbes feel even a bit embarrassed when just over a month later, Superstorm Sandy hit the U.S. coast, causing approximately $65 billion in damage? Do they feel embarrassed now that the newly released IPCC report supports me, not their non-scientist Mr. Taylor? Perhaps we will never know. - http://www.theguardian.com/env...

Comment Re:Female-Run Companies Often do Better Than Male- (Score 2) 271

You are suggesting that female-run companies are more successful because the vagina bestows some management power that penis equipped CEOs lack? You could be right, but I would think that companies that promote based on merit would be more successful. Likely companies with woman as CEO are not promoting based on genitalia but rather based on merit.
Businesses

Video Female-Run Companies Often do Better Than Male-Run Ones (Video) 271

Today's interviewee, Viktoria Tsukanov, is one of the executives at predictive marketing company Mintigo who did a study in January, 2015 that seemed to show that large companies with female CEOs "achieve up to 18% higher revenue per employee than male CEOs." The study, titled "She’s the CEO and She’s Sensational," used financial data Mintigo collected on 20 million companies, and determined CEOs' genders by analyzing first names, so it was not subject to survey vagaries but was a straight data analysis job. Could this be a case of correlation and causation being unrelated? It's possible. It's also possible that the revenue per employee figures are affected by the fact that female CEOs are more common in healthcare and non-profit organizations, while men dominate manufacturing and construction -- and, as Viktoria pointed out in a blog post headlined "Women Just Raised the Bar. Big Time." there may be other factors at work as well.

The "18% higher revenue" figure specifically applies to companies with more than 1000 workers, while companies with fewer workers may average more revenue per employee if they have male CEOs. Besides discussing the study itself, in our interview Viktoria talks about how male employees might want to alter (or not alter) their behavior if they find themselves working for a female boss for the first time. She also discusses challenges a woman might face if she is suddenly put in charge of a heavily male IT or programming staff. Other thoughts she shares have to do with finding mentors and dealing with negative people, both of which apply to people of all genders. Interesting food for thought all around.

Slashdot Top Deals

Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.

Working...