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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:This is interesting.... (Score 1) 573

by BergZ (#49310921) Attached to: Greenpeace Co-Founder Declares Himself a Climate Change Skeptic
What the person you are replying to (u38cg) says is exactly what I say to Creationists who claim to be "challenging the consensus of Evolution" (the Creationists I talk with call themselves "Evolution skeptics").
... And then they reply the same way you just did. The Creationists say "It's a real good thing that scientists didn't say that to Gallileo. We might still believe in an earth-centric universe!"

I don't take it seriously when Creationists make the "appeal to Galileo" argument, why should I take it any more seriously when you make it?

Comment: Re:Actually (Score 1) 532

by BergZ (#49096801) Attached to: Stephen Hawking: Biggest Human Failing Is Aggression
I think that environmentalists are already "touching this issue".
I'm pretty sure that I've heard environmentalists call for better treatment of our waste water (to remove or degrade these hormones) before it is discharged back into the rivers, lakes, and oceans.

Maybe your problem is that environmentalists are "touching the issue" in a way that you didn't anticipate?

+ - Climate Scientist Wins Defamation Suit Against National Post->

Submitted by Layzej
Layzej (1976930) 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.”"

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score 1) 719

by BergZ (#48636357) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

A quip popularly attributed to Carl Sagan.

You know what Carl Sagan had to say about climate change?
"For our own world the peril is more subtle. Since this series [Cosmos] was first broadcast the dangers of the increasing greenhouse effect have become much more clear. We burn fossil fuels like coal, and gas, and petroleum putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and thereby heating the earth. The hellish conditions on Venus are a reminder that this is serious business. Computer models that successfully explain the climates of other planets predict the deaths of forests, parched crop lands, the flooding of coastal cities, environmental refugees; wide spread disasters in the next century, unless we change our ways. What do we have to do? Four things:
(1) Much more efficient use of fossil fuels. Why not cars that get 70 miles-per-gallon instead of 25?
(2) Research and development on safe alternative energy sources, especially solar power.
(3) Reforestation on a grand scale.
and (4) Helping to bring the billion poorest people on the planet to self-sufficiency, which is the key step in curbing world population growth.
Every one of these steps makes sense apart from greenhouse warming! Now, no one has proposed that the trouble with Venus is that there once was Venusians who drove fuel inefficient cars, but our nearest neighbour nevertheless is a stark warning on the possible fate of an earth-like world."

~Carl Sagan, Cosmos (episode 4: Heaven and Hell (update - 10 years later))

Dr. Sagan clearly believed that the "extraordinary claims" of climate science were backed up by extraordinary evidence.

Comment: "Skepticism" CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score 1) 719

by BergZ (#48635091) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'

"The vast majority of the loudest global warming proponents are certainly not scientists. Most of them are environmental activists, with their own agenda to advance."

The "skeptics" of Evolution said the same thing.
They said "the vast majority of the loudest Evolution proponents are certainly not scientists. Most of them are atheists(/secularists) with their own agenda to advance."

I didn't accept that argument from Creationists. Why would I accept it from you?

Comment: Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score 2) 719

by BergZ (#48634615) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'
I find it even more interesting that the skeptics that have collected data and built models ended up convinced that the Climatologists are correct:
"CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."
~Dr. Richard A. Muller
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07...

Comment: Re:So close, so far (Score 1) 561

by BergZ (#48427283) Attached to: "Barbie: I Can Be a Computer Engineer" Pulled From Amazon

"Look either we are all equals or some of us need special treatment. It can't be both."

I think you have the word "equal" confused with "identical" (it is a common mistake).
Two things can be different but still equal.

Even special treatment does not preclude the possibility of two types of things being equal: So long as both groups require some sort of special treatment then they can still be equal.

+ - Companies Genetically Engineer Spider Silk->

Submitted by gthuang88
gthuang88 (3752041) writes "Spider silk is touted for its strength and potential to be used in body armor, sports gear, and even artificial tendons and implants. Now several companies including EntoGenetics, Kraig Labs, and Araknitek have developed genetic approaches to producing commercial quantities of the stuff. One method is to implant spider genes into silkworms, which then act as spider-silk factories. Another is to place the gene that encodes spider web production into the DNA of goats; these “spidergoats” then produce milk containing spider-silk proteins that can be extracted. There’s still a long way to go, however, and big companies like DuPont and BASF have tried and failed to commercialize similar materials."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:More feminist bullshit (Score 1) 728

by BergZ (#48111787) Attached to: Why the Trolls Will Always Win
You perceive women as having a privilege of being given the "benefit of the doubt" and getting public sympathy by default (that you claim men do not receive).
Suppose we accept your premise: Why not solve the imbalance by encouraging people to extend those same social privileges to us men?
Those privileges, that you claim are exclusive to women, make the world a more compassionate and understanding place. I think we need more of that for everyone.

Comment: Re:Argument from authority to counter an ad hom. (Score 2) 263

by BergZ (#48107269) Attached to: Carl Sagan, as "Mr. X," Extolled Benefits of Marijuana
Supporters of prohibition frequently believe that the "lazy, stupid, stoner" effects of marijuana persist after the intoxication has passed (and that eventually they become "burnouts" in the style of Cheech & Chong)
"Stoner" is the marijuana stereotype equivalent of "the town drunkard" (and thus counts as an ad hominem).
We all know that the "drunkard/alcoholic" stereotype does not apply to the vast majority of alcohol consumers. The next step is to get the public to understand that "the stoner" stereotype does not apply to the vast majority of marijuana consumers.

Comment: Re:Argument from authority to counter an ad hom. (Score 2) 263

by BergZ (#48106761) Attached to: Carl Sagan, as "Mr. X," Extolled Benefits of Marijuana
Pointing out that Carl Sagan (or Nobel prize winners, etc) liked to smoke marijuana is a valid retort to the popular misconception that "marijuana users are lazy, stupid, stoners" (an ad hominem frequently used by supporters of prohibition).
Knowing that some of the greatest minds of our era are marijuana smokers disproves that misconception.

+ - MIT Thinks It Has Discovered the 'Perfect' Solar Cell->

Submitted by Daniel_Stuckey
Daniel_Stuckey (2647775) writes "A new MIT study offers a way out of one of solar power's most vexing problems: the matter of efficiency, and the bare fact that much of the available sunlight in solar power schemes is wasted. The researchers appear to have found the key to perfect solar energy conversion efficiency—or at least something approaching it. It's a new material that can accept light from an very large number of angles and can withstand the very high temperatures needed for a maximally efficient scheme.

Conventional solar cells, the silicon-based sheets used in most consumer-level applications, are far from perfect. Light from the sun arrives here on Earth's surface in a wide variety of forms. These forms—wavelengths, properly—include the visible light that makes up our everyday reality, but also significant chunks of invisible (to us) ultraviolet and infrared light. The current standard for solar cells targets mostly just a set range of visible light."

Link to Original Source

What good is a ticket to the good life, if you can't find the entrance?

Working...