Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment It might be a little more complicated than that. (Score 2) 447 447

In Dr Goldacre's talk at nerdstock 2009, he mentions a study in which there were measurable physiological changes. Particularly in the non-placebo group those that were given a muscle relaxant had high muscle relaxant levels in their blood plasma than those who were given the muscle relaxant and were told it was a placebo.

Comment Re:"Support" != actually sacrifice for (Score 1) 458 458

The reality is that the cost of reducing emissions is an order of magnitude cheaper than the cost of mitigation of the consequences of climate change.

So the sacrifice turns out to be a BENEFIT. Assuming you can get Australia, China and Saudi Arabia to join the party.

Comment Re:Ch-Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes (Score 1) 441 441

Mike Strizki says he’s figured out how to store solar energy in a way that could provide the world with an infinite source of year-round, emissions-free power ...

I think he must mean a continuous source. An infinite source of power is a pretty big claim.

That's All the energy in the universe, plus a great deal more.

Comment Re:It's All In The Spelling (Score 1) 786 786

Objective Truth may exist elsewhere, but it is unknowable.

It's not unknowable, unless you're working with some really weird idea of "truth" such that it is all in one piece, and the fact that you know that there's a coffee cup sitting on your desk isn't known because you don't know what dark matter is.

An important thing to recognize about post-modernism is that its complete bullshit.

Comment Re:FFS? (Score 1) 786 786

So you've changed your objection from "the models don't work at all".

Good. Models aren't going to be perfect ever, but they're very useful for investigating systems like the climate.

Your objection has become: "The message is one of doom"

This is a common pitfall in thinking. It's called the argument from final consequences. It turns out that the quality of science is not determined by what the final consequences are, but by the rigor and reproducibility of the work.

Comment Re:Stop trying to win this politically (Score 1) 786 786

When you try to convince people to do something, that is politics.

I think you've got something of a false dichotomy fallacy going on there.

Science communication is increasingly considered an aspect of science. It's not a required aspect of science, but it is an allowable and increasingly encouraged aspect of science.

So when you try to convince people to understand science, that is science.

When the increased necessity for communicating that science is because people are communication anti-science for political reasons, that can affect how you communicate science, but it doesn't affect that what you are doing is science.

Mann mentions the implication that we need to reduce emissions only to describe the misinformation out there. :

But faced with this overwhelming scientific consensus about the threat of human-caused climate change - and, by implication, the necessity to reduce global carbon emissions - fossil fuel interests have in many cases chosen not to accept the evidence, nor to engage in good-faith discussion about possible solutions. Instead, they have opted to deny the problem exists.

What Mann is doing is communicating science. The reason that you're mistaking it for politics is because there are voices trying to miscommunicate science that need to be understood by the public to understand the science.

Comment Re:Stop trying to win this politically (Score 1) 786 786

Michael Mann has a clear political goal. He wants America (and the world) to act to avoid the risks of AGW.

I think that he has a clear scientific goal, he wants people to understand climate science.
A consequence of that understanding is an understanding of the need to reduce greenhouse emissions, but lots of science has policy consequences. Epidemiology shows that we should vaccinate. Physics shows that we should put the front doors of buildings on the ground floor. It's only political if you enter the discussion of how to do it.

Comment FFS? (Score 1) 786 786

In other words, the models don't work at all, what is the excuse that the rubes will buy so we can keep draining science funds for a few more years?

I see someone is upset with science.
Can you show me on the doll where the science touched you?

Science progresses. It is already known that the climate models will improve with improved resolution.

Astronomer's don't know what makes up 90% of the universe. Go attack them for extracting funds for a few more years so you don't look like a climate change denier.

Comment Re:A bit rich (Score 1) 786 786

And thoroughly debunked (in peer-reviewed journals, natch) by McIntyre and McKitrick as an artifact of one proxy (Sheep Mountain) being artificially weighted hundreds of times more than any of the others.

It is pretty unusual for a Mining consultant with no higher degree and an economist to be able to publish in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Was it highly regarded?

It's even more unusual for such a publication to thoroughly debunk a scientific paper that has been corroborated over a dozen times.

Are you certain that that's a correct description of what happened?

The scientific press seemed to be reporting the opposite:
Academy affirms hockey-stick graph.

Comment Re:Stop trying to win this politically (Score 1) 786 786

Mann is communicating science. The fact that for this aspect of science there are PR groups funded to miscommunication the science affects how the science has to be communicated.

That doesn't make him a political strategist. For that he would need some political end. (And the public understanding of science isn't political, unless you're Boko Haram or Inhofe.)

Comment Re:What exactly do you mean by "Fraud"? (Score 1) 786 786

I clearly misunderstood your point. Sorry for that.

CO2 causes damage to the environment because of its action as a greenhouse gas, and by causing acidification of the oceans.
Things that causes undesirable effects in the environment are called pollutants, so most people would count CO2 as a pollutant.
What I'm not understanding is:
(1) On what basis do you claim that "However CO2 doesn't play a role in [keeping air and water quality good]"?
(2) What is creating CO2 by breathing an example of?

Nothing is rich but the inexhaustible wealth of nature. She shows us only surfaces, but she is a million fathoms deep. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Working...