Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:saved! (Score 2) 413

There are the tar sands in Canada that hold an immense amount of oil.

Not as much as you'd think. I ran the numbers.

3.3tn barrels of oil, at 2:1 EROEI works out to 1.65tn net barrels of oil. This is more than has ever been extracted in all of human history. And yet, at our current rate of use (30bn/yr) and growth (1.8%), we'll be out in 37 years. If it were ten times as much oil, it would still only last us just over 100 years.

Comment Re:What are you going to do? (Score 1) 1105

Note I also mentioned in-season produce. The problem of local-but-foreign and year-round produce is well-known, but to my understanding, the situation around local, seasonal, and native produce is more favorable. The price rule of thumb is a great suggestion, though. I'll be sure to start paying more attention to that.

Comment What are you going to do? (Score 3, Insightful) 1105

So what are any Of you going to do about it? Continue to point fingers at China? The third world? Oil companies?

How about accepting that you can't change others, and instead set examples yourself. I moved into the city, leave my A/C and heat off whenever possible, bicycle for 95% of my trips (including commuting), grow as much of my own food as I can, and buy the rest locally and in-season whenever possible.

2 years ago, I was doing none of that. Now my personal energy footprint is a fraction of what it had been. Perhaps not as much as is needed, but it's something, and none of it has honestly even been hard.

So again I ask: what are you going to do about it? What will you or have you changed about your lifestyle to help avert global disaster?

Comment Re:Where's the beef? (Score 1) 760

is NOT an appeal to authority. It's an inverse of an appeal to authority. Inverses are not logically equivalent. An appeal to authority would be this:

As I said, verbatim,

Appeal to authority works in the other direction too, you know.

The inverse is not logically equivalent, which was never asserted, but the inverse is certainly logically sound. This would have been plainly obvious had you paused for a minute to actually comprehend what was written.

I see that once again that you couldn't be bothered to attack my claims on their own merits as I encouraged. Pity.

Regardless, you simply cannot evade the fact that you inappropriately dismissed one of my sources out-of-hand, which I then backed up with five more sources, including the two original sources (NOAA and NASA) which confirmed the claim. This was, of course, only even one of four different lines of evidence proving my point. This whole time, you've been arguing with me (poorly, might I add), about bullshit semantics, while I have actually delivered on the goal of well-sourced evidence backing my claims.

And yet, you still have the painful ignorance to assert that I've ensured my own irrelevance. If you'd care to check the mods on our little thread here, I think even you will be able to deduce who came off as the half-wit and who the better.

The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -- Sagan