Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Why does it have to 'ozone' or 'climate change' (Score 2) 174

You are wrong. CFCs are chemically stable, non-toxic and non-flammable. There only so many permutations possible in chemistry, and CFCs are truly a wonder of chemistry. Alternatives are only partially up to be replacements, and are more than often corrosive, toxic, unstable.

You are correct on the facts.

Banning CFCs was at best a big mistake, if not outright a crime. It is inevitable that CFCs prohibition is ended at some point, because it simply makes no sense at all.

You are totally wrong on the conclusions. Long term destruction of the ozone would have been a disaster.

Comment Re:C'mon (Score 2) 288

Tillerson blamed a public that is "illiterate" in science and math, a "lazy" press

The irony is the majority of people who are *literate* in science and math (including, what, about 95% of climate scientists?) agree that global warming is real and we need to do something about it. It's the scientifically illiterate who keep trying to claim (with their scientifically illiterate arguments, of course) that it's all a big conspiracy with no scientific support...

Ignore all the stupid people, they don't understand it. Also, ignore all the smart people. Just listen to me, I'm the only one you can trust.

Comment Re:C'mon (Score 2) 288

Yes, its true that many people are illiterate in math and science. But most of them are aware of the limits of their understanding.

For the past 20 years corporates like Exxon have been trashing the scientists who actually are quite knowledgeable about science, match, climatalogy, etc. They've been undermining public education efforts. They've demeaning any scientist who speaks out as 'greedy', while raking in record profits.

If the public is misinformed about climate change, its largely Exxon's fault.

Slashdot Top Deals

A meeting is an event at which the minutes are kept and the hours are lost.