Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

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:Global Warming alarmists (Score 1) 473

by freejung (#36486234) Attached to: No, We're Not Headed For a New Ice Age

Unfortunately, you're simply failing to grasp the scope of the problem.

You're quite right that poverty is the biggest killer on the planet, but poverty is also the primary reason why people will die (and already are dying) due to global warming.

You see, when a system of oscillators accumulates energy, the amplitude of the oscillations tends to increase. This means that the extremes become more extreme, and you get both extreme droughts and extreme floods. Haven't you noticed that Texas and Arizona are burning while the Mississippi floods? That sort of thing starts happening much more frequently as the temperature increases.

So it's not just a matter of being slowly inundated by the encroaching sea, it's more like being alternately inundated with record flooding and parched with severe drought, repeatedly for many years, and then being slowly inundated by the encroaching sea.

You are fortunate that denial is, as they say, not just a river in Africa, because when the rivers of Africa start to experience alternating severe drought and flooding the way Australia already is, you're probably not going to want to be clinging desperately to any African rivers anyway.

So, what effect do you suppose all of this will have on food commodity prices? And what effect do you suppose that will have on the poor? It's already happening, food prices are way up and many people are dying because of it. And this is only the beginning, Mother Nature is just getting warmed up.

Comment: Re:Of course Discover magazine would say this (Score 1) 473

by freejung (#36483468) Attached to: No, We're Not Headed For a New Ice Age

Let's call things what they are for a change, shall we?

When multiple independent well-established lines of evidence all point unequivocally to the same conclusion, I call that science.

When thousands of papers, the official statements of every major scientific organization in the world, and the professional opinion of ~97% of active researchers in the field support the same conclusion, you might just want to consider whether that conclusion might not be science, you think?

When the incoherent antiscientific blatherings of professional corporate shills contradict the vastly overwhelming body of scientific evidence, I call that propaganda.

Comment: Re:Of course Discover magazine would say this (Score 1) 473

by freejung (#36482568) Attached to: No, We're Not Headed For a New Ice Age
Of course I do. Real Climate is spearheaded by Gavin Schmidt, one of NASA's leading climatologists and a genuine hero. By your logic we shouldn't listen to any expert on any issue, since their funding is dependent on their subject of study. OK, so we throw out all scientific knowledge, and we know nothing whatsoever about anything. That's not helpful.

Comment: Re:Of course Discover magazine would say this (Score 1) 473

by freejung (#36482484) Attached to: No, We're Not Headed For a New Ice Age

To elaborate, what you're doing is citing a study without understanding anything about it, out of context, and claiming it relates to an issue upon which it has very little bearing. That experiment didn't disprove that the moon is made of green cheese either.

You read about that paper on some non-scientific propaganda site like WUWT or Denial Depot. People there, who have no more understanding of science than you do, claimed that the paper meant something it doesn't, and you believed them because it fit in with your preconceived notions.

Dig a little deeper next time.

Comment: adaptation is much more expensive (Score 2) 473

by freejung (#36477384) Attached to: No, We're Not Headed For a New Ice Age

This whole line of reasoning seems plausible on the surface, until you actually do some research into it.

It's not a matter of optimal, it's a matter of what we're used to. Radical, rapid change in climate (such as we're already experiencing, and it'll get much worse) changes rainfall patterns and other factors that will force us to change where we build our cities, where we grow our food, etc. That kind of adjustment is incredibly expensive, much more expensive than taking reasonable mitigation steps now.

You want to move people out of areas that might be affected? OK, then start with the entire continental US, which is projected to experience severe drops in precipitation that will make the dustbowl look like a monsoon. And that's just one dimension of the probable impacts.

See this article, "Real adaptation is as politically tough as real mitigation, but much more expensive and not as effective in reducing future misery":

Comment: Re:If they want to be taken seriously (Score 1) 224

by freejung (#33638878) Attached to: Swedish Pirate Party Fails To Enter Parliament
When they did well in 2009, it seemed like part of the reason was the unusual name. It made people curious to find out more about them. Certainly it didn't seem to be holding them back, they did way better than expected for a minor party. Now that the haven't done so well, people are saying "drop the name." Maybe the change is due to actual political factors, not merely a branding problem.

Parts that positively cannot be assembled in improper order will be.