Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:So SSL is nothing more than an honor system? (Score 5, Insightful) 107

by bunratty (#47423581) Attached to: India's National Informatics Centre Forged Google SSL Certificates
Everything is nothing more than an honor system. You trust the operating system to accept only the password you chose when someone tries to log in to your account. You trust the compiler not to secretly install backdoors into software. You trust the hardware manufacturers not to implement secret knocks to allow backdoor access. You trust your browser to handle SSL certificates appropriately. If you don't like it, you can build your own hardware and software from scratch and feel safe in the knowledge that it's secure. That is, if you trust that you didn't make a mistake.

Comment: Re:"...technological paths available..." (Score 1) 365

by bunratty (#47420971) Attached to: Blueprints For Taming the Climate Crisis
I don't think they have agreed it's the most cost-effective solution. I think the bottom line is that they agree that the effects of a warming of 2 degrees Celsius are so bad that we should try hard to avert it. We don't have the technology to remove enough carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to meet that goal, so the only option is to reduce emissions. Now, if you have a better idea, please speak up!

Comment: Re:Plant Trees (Score 1) 365

by bunratty (#47419365) Attached to: Blueprints For Taming the Climate Crisis
We're putting 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. At that rate, every person on Earth would be responsible for creating nearly 5 tons of tree each year to eat up all that carbon dioxide. I don't think there's enough space on land for that, even if everyone could plant trees that fast.

Comment: Re:I live in Montana. I'm looking forward to it. (Score 1) 365

by bunratty (#47419327) Attached to: Blueprints For Taming the Climate Crisis
"They" didn't change "it". Global warming means exactly what it sounds like it means: the Earth is getting warmer on average. Climate change means all of the associated changes in the climate that go along with increased temperatures, such as increased drought in areas that are prone to drought. And you're right that global warming doesn't mean that it will get warmer everywhere, because at first some places will become cooler. However, as global warming progresses, it will eventually be hotter on each place on Earth than it was in the early 1900s.

Comment: Re:It *isn't* that well understood (Score 1) 392

by bunratty (#47417017) Attached to: Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann
No, the point of reducing carbon dioxide emissions is absolutely not to halt all climate change. We couldn't do such a thing if we tried! The problem is the rate of change of climate. We want to reduce our effect on the climate so it isn't changing as rapidly. If it changes more slowly, we can adapt to the change much more easily.

Comment: Re:Modern Day Anti-Evolutionists (Score 1) 392

by bunratty (#47416409) Attached to: Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

No, I'm not being thick. I was expecting actual misinformation such as "volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide than fossil fuels", "Antarctic ice is not melting", "the planet's temperature is not increasing", "the warming is due to increased solar output" and so on. If you ask me, the misinformation is coming from the other side, you know, the one that doesn't have actual evidence on their side so they need to fabricate it.

As for your "short period of time" claim, I did not see a date in the first article you posted, and it also provides no time frame for when the prediction holds. How you could consider that to be a prediction already proved incorrect, much less misinformation, is beyond me.

Comment: Re:Modern Day Anti-Evolutionists (Score 2) 392

by bunratty (#47416085) Attached to: Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

Those are predictions about the future, as noted by the future tense form "will X". Think about what you would need to do so show those statements are misinformation. You don't have a crystal ball, do you? Even if you do are could conclusively show the predictions are inaccurate, that still doesn't demonstrate willful dissent of misinformation, just someone making an incorrect prediction.

Again, could you give some misinformation that is regularly spewed by the left about climate change?

There is nothing so easy but that it becomes difficult when you do it reluctantly. -- Publius Terentius Afer (Terence)

Working...