Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Alarmists - wrong on global warming since 1978! (Score -1, Troll) 255

I never said I thought it was impossible to screw with the climate. It'd be easy. Want a temperature decrease? Drop a few nukes in Siberia. That'd throw a ton of matter into the atmosphere, causing dramatic global cooling. Sure there'd be radiation poisoning to those who lived around there and global famine, but we'd solve that whole global warming thing for a few decades.

Bad solution there. But it would ACTUALLY have a significant cooling impact on global temps.

Switching to windmills (which have a huge carbon footprint in their manufacture) and solar (ditto, plus the whole poisoning China thing with harvesting rare earths) won't have any significant cooling impact, ever. Those "solutions" are bunk. Better to go whole-hog on fracking - natural gas burns much cleaner with minimal environmental negatives compared to its energy density. But then the same people who cry "global warming" cry "no fracking." The perfect is the enemy of the good.

In the end, I have faith in the species to adapt or to invent technologies that actually will be helpful. We're not there yet. Band-aid solutions in the short term are meaningless. So are gotcha-type articles about Exxon.

Comment Re:Alarmists - wrong on global warming since 1978! (Score 1) 255

It's silly to be fanatical when there are no viable solutions. Even the most extreme proposals to cut CO2 would have an impact of around 1/10th of a degree temperature reduction. It's laughable. The second someone comes up with an effective, viable solution to drop 2 degrees, I'm on board.

Comment Re:Alarmists - wrong on global warming since 1978! (Score -1, Troll) 255

There hasn't been the "major impact on the company’s core business" that the scientist warned. It's #2 on the Fortune 500. So the scientist was wrong. Unless you're going to try to argue that some scientist in 1978 was predicting the doom of Exxon more than 5 decades in the future. That's ludicrous.

Comment Re:She could have been honest, for a change, at le (Score 3, Insightful) 553

I agree, pretty much. I think she'll get backers that keep her relevant because the money understands there's an advantage to having a woman in the primary who can take shots at Hillary without getting slammed as sexist. I doubt she'll get on the ticket as VP, and I doubt she's vying for that role.

I also agree Walker looks like the front runner. He's still developing, but he starts from a very strong position. If he can avoid any major flubs that the media can run with, he has a real shot.

Comment Re:Not about saving money (Score 1) 622

I was talking production CO2 from an EV car versus production CO2 from a traditional car. The former is much more difficult to manufacture, and releases significantly more CO2 in the process. I believe small traditional cars like the Honda Civic are by far the most responsible cars to purchase if you truly care about CO2.

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..." -- Isaac Asimov