Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



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:Summary is a farce (Score 1) 340

by Plumpaquatsch (#49164475) Attached to: We Stopped At Two Nuclear Bombs; We Can Stop At Two Degrees.

The summary is written as if human co2 emissions are the ONLY thing that influence climate change.

No, it's written like it's the only thing significantly influencing climate change. Care to name any other significant influences (preferably anything not also man-made - and no, methane produced by intensive animal farming is also man-made).

Comment: Re:Prosperity Is Bad For Business (Score 1) 340

by Plumpaquatsch (#49164305) Attached to: We Stopped At Two Nuclear Bombs; We Can Stop At Two Degrees.

up to 20 degrees higher than today at the northernmost latitudes... the global sea level was about 25 meters higher

I bet some inland Canadians/Scandinavian countries wouldn't mind, and they're not the only ones. There's lots of money to be made by letting climate change create havoc: insurance companies get more business when there's uncertainty; uncertainty gives speculators more volatility to work with; defense contractors have more food riots to quell; politicians get to make more promises to solve the new problems; and corporations get more grants, bailouts and subsidies to help solve them. First-world politicians get to use FUD to gain a bit more control over the populace, and the harsher climates help them avoid that dreaded post-scarcity economy just a little bit longer. Break enough windows and people won't be able to buy a society that no longer 'needs' the robber barons and demagogues.

So your point is that the evil cabal out to control the world is going to win either way, and doing nothing will make it cheaper for those who live now?

Comment: Re:Let it happen (Score 1) 340

by Plumpaquatsch (#49164249) Attached to: We Stopped At Two Nuclear Bombs; We Can Stop At Two Degrees.

"if it turns out the science was right." Yes, there has been generous funding for decades for those claiming they can predict the effects (good or bad) of pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. When is it time to hold them to a prediction to prove their worth?

Considering they didn't predict for most of the bad effects to happen by now, why should we? Holy fuck, the only people constantly predicting immediate doom are the denialists who insist that even burning a few gallons of oil less would tank the economy in no time.

Comment: Re:CO2 in exhaled breath is 40,000 ppm (4%) so ... (Score 1) 340

by Plumpaquatsch (#49164199) Attached to: We Stopped At Two Nuclear Bombs; We Can Stop At Two Degrees.

"Daily Caller"? Okay, sure, lets ignore that for "greening" you also need more water and nutrients and go from the denialist distractoid to the real point: his "report" (which is more like a workplace safety bulletin) has nothing to do with plants, which you would have noticed if you had even carefully read what he wrote ("Some individuals" - only a dolt would think he's talking about plants).

So remind me why I even bother explaining this to you? You don't want any facts. You hate facts.

Comment: Re:Extinction event (Score 1) 340

by Plumpaquatsch (#49164151) Attached to: We Stopped At Two Nuclear Bombs; We Can Stop At Two Degrees.

Hey, you know what didn't cause the Pliocene extinction event? High global temperatures. Know what hasn't caused any extinction event in the history of the world? High global temperatures.

You know what you are? Wrong. http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/275/1630/47.full / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

Comment: Re:ok, so it's not unstoppable (Score 2) 340

by Plumpaquatsch (#49153333) Attached to: We Stopped At Two Nuclear Bombs; We Can Stop At Two Degrees.

Global warming is a great thing - just ask Canada, especially the places that are currently -40 degrees.

As opposed to those near freezing - at the Arctic Circle? There is a reason why "Global" is capitalized. Here's a nice world map how temperatures where compared to the average for Jan. 2015: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

Final thought... comparisons are to rebuilding today's infrastructure as if it wasn't constantly changing already. We have decades and perhaps centuries to adjust - ever hear of constant improvement?

We are decades behind fixing our infrastructure already - do you really want to drag that out even longer?

Comment: Re:Problably didn't consider that talking point (Score 1) 445

Probably more for being pro-climate change.

How do you figure? Solar panels are pennies on the ten thousand dollar bill next to oil. Fellating Exxon is a thoroughly bipartisan endeavor - Obama has opened up more land to drilling than Bush and Cheney, including the eastern seaboard. He brags that the U.S. is producing more oil and gas than it has the ability to transport to market. Biden's son is a top executive at Ukrainian energy company. BP was allowed to savage the Gulf of Mexico and get away with paying a fraction of the costs of mitigation. Politicians from both parties fall over themselves in the rush to pledge their love of coal.

Government has a heavy bias toward fossil fuels. If there was a bias resulting from government-funded science grants, it would be against climate change, not for it.

Case in point: just look at the GAO Climate Change report, detailing expenditures on "Funding for climate change activities", by far the most money goes to the Dept. of Energy, which of course doesn't spend a penny on actual climate science, but on things like "energy conservation" (ooh, evil) and "Fossil Energy Research and Development "

Yes you read that right. The tax that according to the denialist PR gets wasted on climate research to quite a large extend goes into "Fossil Energy Research".

Comment: Re:Inquisition (Score 1) 386

by Plumpaquatsch (#49147219) Attached to: Lawmakers Seek Information On Funding For Climate Change Critics

Nope, its the people who have to listen to the same "experts" (who mostly aren't climate scientists) repeating the same arguments that disagree with the vast majority of actual climate scientists.

"Nope" ??? "Nope"?? I would call that a failure of comprehension.

Yeah. On your part. Poor downtrodden denialist.

Comment: Re:Interesing... (Score 1) 386

by Plumpaquatsch (#49142451) Attached to: Lawmakers Seek Information On Funding For Climate Change Critics

and the wall street banks were salivating at the thought of trading carbon credits your point being?

a lot of money to be made on "green" crap

So which climate scientists got funding from Wall Street? As opposed to the non-climate-scientists experts on climate science the oil industry funded?

Comment: Re:Inquisition (Score 2) 386

by Plumpaquatsch (#49140139) Attached to: Lawmakers Seek Information On Funding For Climate Change Critics

It isn't the "scientific community" that is making this demand, it is the people that fund the "scientific community"

Nope, its the people who have to listen to the same "experts" (who mostly aren't climate scientists) repeating the same arguments that disagree with the vast majority of actual climate scientists. And they want to know if there is something going on here - like the experts being paid by the same people as those who insist that they know more about climate science than actual climate scientists. You know, Senators like James M. Inhofe and people like the Koch brothers.

Have you reconsidered a computer career?

Working...