Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Color me a "skeptic" (Score 4, Insightful) 54

Earth has been impacted by asteroids in the past, so there's nothing to worry about. It's just a natural phenomenon. Besides, the people saying we should be looking for asteroids are just greedy for grant money. If it turns out the be a real threat, I'm sure the technology to deal with it will magically appear -- with the economy the way it is we can't afford nonessential projects now.

Remember how silly these arguments sound when applied to other potential problems.

+ - Peter Hadfield on The Consequences of Climate Change

Submitted by bunratty
bunratty (545641) writes "Journalist Peter Hadfield (potholer54 on YouTube) has a new video on the consequences of climate change in our lifetime. He has read the scientific literature to separate out the bogus claims from the realistic claims, from both sides of the schism. This balanced approach makes it a good view for skeptics and believers alike."

+ - There's got to be more than the Standard Model

Submitted by StartsWithABang
StartsWithABang (3485481) writes "The Standard Model of particle physics is perhaps the most successful physical theory of our Universe, and with the discovery and measurement of the Higgs boson, may be all there is as far as fundamental particles accessible through terrestrial accelerator physics. But there are at least five verified observations we've made, many in a variety of ways, that demonstrably show that the Standard Model cannot be all there is to the Universe. Here are the top 5 signs of new physics."

Comment: Re:Are we so in thrall to our fossil fuel overlord (Score 1) 341

According to the story yesterday, we should triple the energy we get from renewables and nuclear. I don't think that's going to take the whole world back to the stone age. It sounds like developing more advanced technology and engineering to me.

Comment: Re:What if we overcorrect? (Score 1) 341

Every climatologist I know of agrees we've caused a significant amount of warming. 98% of them agree we've caused most of the warming. The skeptics think that we've caused less than half, although a significant amount. It would help your case very much if you post some evidence to back up your claims. What climatologists are suggesting that we haven't caused a significant amount of warming?

Comment: Re:When is the "UN" not the United Nations? (Score 1) 431

by bunratty (#46747785) Attached to: UN: Renewables, Nuclear Must Triple To Save Climate
The only thing I'm trying to get across to him is that it isn't up to anyone to convince him to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. If he wants us not to try to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, HE has to convince THEM (governments worldwide) not to do it. That's what happened, for example, with CFCs and sulfur emissions decades ago -- governments agrees to cut emissions, and they did. We don't have to go around convincing the non-believers. Good thing, too.

Comment: Re:When is the "UN" not the United Nations? (Score 1) 431

by bunratty (#46747601) Attached to: UN: Renewables, Nuclear Must Triple To Save Climate
I didn't claim the world agrees on the basis of a report produced by 12 people. I said it because governments around the world agree that we should limit the warming due to burning fossil fuels to 2 degrees Celsius.

At the very heart of the response to climate change, however, lies the need to reduce emissions. In 2010, governments agreed that emissions need to be reduced so that global temperature increases are limited to below 2 degrees Celsius.

You haven't been paying attention to the news at all, have you? Global warming is mentioned all the time, as is the widespread agreement to limit it by reducing carbon dioxide emissions by burning fewer fossil fuels.

Comment: Re:When is the "UN" not the United Nations? (Score 1) 431

by bunratty (#46743687) Attached to: UN: Renewables, Nuclear Must Triple To Save Climate
"We" is the human race. Where did I say anything about taxes or shutting up? Go scream your lungs out if it'll make you feel better. There's widespread agreement that we want to cut carbon dioxide emissions to limit the warming. But it's not up to you, nor to me for that matter. Don't act like we need to convince you first.

Comment: Re:The Emperor Has No Data (Score 1, Interesting) 431

by bunratty (#46742759) Attached to: UN: Renewables, Nuclear Must Triple To Save Climate
Considering that the climate varies according to natural variation such as solar output and volcanic eruptions, both of which we cannot predict, I don't think it's surprising that we can't predict climate exactly, especially over the short term. And just because we can't predict climate exactly doesn't mean the predictions are worthless. That's a false dichotomy.

Comment: Re:Yeah I'm still not really buying this stuff. (Score 1) 431

by bunratty (#46742667) Attached to: UN: Renewables, Nuclear Must Triple To Save Climate
I'd agree with you if it was just one study. But there have been hundreds of studies (starting in 1896), and they nearly all agree that doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will warm the planet by 2 degrees Celsius or more. And we've observed the temperature rise nearly 1 degree Celsius with a rise in CO2 from 280 to 400 ppm, which appears to confirm those studies.

I'm a Lisp variable -- bind me!

Working...