Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re: No mystery at all (Score 1) 111

According to TFA: Likely candidates include venting from oil and gas activities, which are primarily coalbed methane exploration and extraction in this region; active coal mines; and natural gas seeps... The Four Corners coal-fired power plant, near Farmington, is one of the targets Nasa wants to investigate as a possible cause of the methane

Comment: Re:No mystery at all (Score 5, Informative) 111

Coal bed methane, that is in the cracks and pores of coals, is old, old and well known thing.

Yeah. It's even mentioned in TFA:

This indicates the methane emissions should not be attributed to fracking but instead to leaks in natural gas production and processing equipment in New Mexico's San Juan Basin, which is the most active coalbed methane production area in the country.

'The results are indicative that emissions from established fossil fuel harvesting techniques are greater than inventoried,' Kort said.

Comment: Re:I am a paid troll (Score 1) 269

by Layzej (#49358947) Attached to: How Professional Russian Trolls Operate
The Heartland institute is paid by the fossil fuel industry to spread misinformation about climate change. Popular misinformation sites like WUWT have received $80,000 in a single year. Even as a lowly intern you can get a small piece of the pie. They'll pay you $150/week to comment on relevant blogs, newspaper articles, and social media.

+ - One Professional Russian Troll Tells All->

Submitted by SecState
SecState writes: Hundreds of full-time, well-paid trolls operate thousands of fake accounts to fill social media sites and comments threads with pro-Kremlin propaganda. A St. Petersburg blogger spent two months working 12-hour shifts in a "troll factory," targeting forums of Russian municipal websites. In an interview, he describes how he worked in teams with two other trolls to create false "debates" about Russian and international politics, with pro-Putin views always scoring the winning point. Of course, with the U.S. government invoking "state secrets" to dismiss a defamation case against the supposedly independent advocacy group United Against a Nuclear Iran, Americans also need to be asking how far is too far when it comes to masked government propaganda.
Link to Original Source

+ - "Founder" of Greenpeace says pesticides are safe to drink.-> 1

Submitted by Layzej
Layzej writes: "Founder of Greenpeace" Patrick Moore, who was reported here last week denying the physics of anthropogenic climate change on behalf of the Heartland Institute, is now claiming that the pesticide glysophate is safe for Argentinians to drink. "You can drink a whole quart of it and it won't hurt you" he stated. "It is not dangerous to humans". Although when pressed he refused to take a sip, he did state "I know it wouldn't hurt me".
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:What global warming? (Score 1) 573

by Layzej (#49310249) Attached to: Greenpeace Co-Founder Declares Himself a Climate Change Skeptic
Yup. That's about the level of 'argument' presented by Patrick Moore. It basically amounts to just making stuff up. Here is the temperature increase over the last 18 and 26 years according to the satellite reconstruction compiled by skeptic Roy Spencer: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/u... . The warming over the period is considerable. Equivalent to billions of nuclear bombs worth of accumulated energy.

Comment: Re:incredulity != evidence (Score 2) 573

by Layzej (#49310023) Attached to: Greenpeace Co-Founder Declares Himself a Climate Change Skeptic

He shows he hasn't read an IPCC report when he says IPCC will "consider only the human causes of global warming". IPCC outlines scientific consensus on all sources of climate change from solar cycles to milankovitch cycles.

Honestly, there's a whole chapter on it. He could have figured this just by reading the headers.

Comment: incredulity != evidence (Score 5, Informative) 573

by Layzej (#49310007) Attached to: Greenpeace Co-Founder Declares Himself a Climate Change Skeptic
Needless to say, scientists disagree. Patrick Moore shows he knows little of science when he says "There is no scientific proof." There is very compelling evidence, but there is no such thing as "Scientific proof".

He laughably accuses scientists of being in the pay of vested interests all the while being a PR front for fossil fuel interests such as the Heartland Institute that published this very piece.

His 'argument' amounts to long debunked talking points.

He shows he hasn't read an IPCC report when he says IPCC will "consider only the human causes of global warming". IPCC outlines scientific consensus on all sources of climate change from solar cycles to milankovitch cycles.

He shows he hasn't looked at paleoclimate reconstructions which show that the Earth has been generally cooling for the last 8000 years and that the current temperatures are likely higher than at least the last couple thousand.

The rest of his argument boils down to simple incredulity, which is not very compelling.

Money is the root of all evil, and man needs roots.

Working...