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


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Cyber Monday Sale Extended! Courses ranging from coding to project management - all eLearning deals 20% off with coupon code "CYBERMONDAY20". ×

Comment Re: Talk about creating a demand (Score 3, Insightful) 334

Just because someone doesn't jump on the first "solution" you see doesn't mean that they are not aware of the problem.

The problem is we have no one proposing truly reasonable alternatives. Instead of patching what they call our "antiquated" power grid, perhaps we should actually rethink it. The renewable energy sources have a common problem because they cannot provide power when it is needed with suitable reliability. Allowing people to generate power using solar and wind, use it what they want and sell the rest to utilities sounds very good, but it does not reduce the peak capacity that the utilities must have, further it increases the swing between peak and minimum meaning the utilities must have capacity that can be brought online quickly and shutdown quickly, sometimes several times a day. These "green" energy sources are not nearly as green as they could be in a properly integrated power grid. Patching batteries into the grid just delays a properly engineered solution. Industrial power users are one of the keys to success since they have the greatest financial interest in the cost of power, and have the resources to capitalize the solutions. Having the smallest/smallish users capitalize the grid is stupid because they can't pay for it upfront and if made compulsory, they will pay while industry profits. A smart grid where your car and laptop charge at times of minimal demand/maximum availability is also likely to be needed. With a proper design we won't be wasting huge amounts of resources as we iterate towards a solution.

Comment Headline Makes 3 Assertions, How Many are True? (Score 1) 283

"In Historic Turn, CO2 Emissions Flatline In 2014, Even As Global Economy Grows." There are three distinct claims made:

1 - That CO2 emissions have not flatlined or declined before while the economy grew - While this is a logical assumption, there is not sufficient data to support the conclusion on the historical end.

2 - That CO2 emissions flatlined. I do not believe we measure the emissions with sufficient precision to accept this assertion. When the numbers consist of estimates piled upon estimates, the conclusion has error bands that still go well into the positive side.

3 - That the global economy grew. Same issues as #2 in the other direction.

Given that, according to the headline itself this is unprecedented, should we not be skeptical of claims 2 and/or 3?

Comment Re: Corporate interests (Score 1) 448

You truly are an idiot - just as Alexander Graham Bell predicted you would be. One cannot prove that Bell did not say the thing attributed to him, but no one can find such a quote before 1997 (75 years after his death) from the falsified biography which was attempting to make Bell relevant, but no one has an image of an original document or contemporary reference to support the quotation - it is drawn from whole cloth. I can cite the source relevant to his supposed advocacy for alternative fuels which clearly shows he had no environmental concerns and confirms my statement as to his reasoning which were strictly economic contrary to many of the current attempts to rehabilitate his image as a forward-looking environmentalist instead of an industrialist:

It isn't nitpicking, I simply do not believe your post required more than a cursory response. I have no obligation to address the many falsehoods you put forth, but let's start with your initial statement, "Gore is right: the science is settled. In fact, it's been understood for nearly 200 years" Again, this is revisionist history. Fourier ultimately dismissed "greenhouse" effects in his published works which disqualifies him from being credited with an understanding of the issue of planetary temperature.

If you want to insist that Fourier understood the issue, then you must conclude as he did that the atmosphere was not part of the issue of the the planet's temperature. I am confident you do not agree with his conclusion.

Svante Arrhenius described the greenhouse effect in 1896 which at 119 years ago is not really all that near 200 years.

Perhaps you should actually educate yourself on this issue. It is clear that your sources are dubious, and that you are not a critical thinker, but merely a parrot spewing talking points.

Comment Re: Corporate interests (Score 1) 448

The Alexander Graham Bell quote is revisionist history - there is no record of such statements prior to 1997. No one has ever published an image of any document with such words. Bell was anything but an environmentalist, he advocated alternative fuels because he believed that oil would be depleted within a decade. Your ability to copy verbatim from a Wikipedia article is unlikely to be confused with intelligence or critical thinking by anyone possessing either of those traits.

Comment Re: Yay Canada! (Score 1, Insightful) 231

No, the first sentence is not fine. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of rights vs law. The court ruled that people have always had the right, rights trump laws so any laws abridging the right are void and must be eliminated. Viewing this as changing laws is wrong because it would put this into the realm of debate over public policy, and rights are not subject to debate without constitutional amendment.

16.5 feet in the Twilight Zone = 1 Rod Serling