Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Comment Re:More nope (Score 1) 411

You don't understand science. Scientific predictions can be wrong. Over time, the mass of accumulation of experimentation, facts, and results produces the body of knowledge of science. If there's a problem with our understanding of gravity, the Theory of Gravity is not thrown out the window; it is updated. After hundreds of years of studying gravity, with a massive amount of data points, experiments, etc., it's just not going to be wrong on most points - and even if it is, it doesn't make any of science's previous modelings of gravity to be unscientific.

The fact that it's hard to predict climate does not mean that the body of scientific evidence can be ruled out. We have evidence of dozens of years of Earth's average temperature not going up as much as some hypothesized. However, the data of the theories of AGW is only increasing and getting more accurate. There are now way more variables that are understood for the climate models. For example, and I promise this isn't an AGW crackpot theory, google the effect of airplane contrails after 9/11, when almost all airplane flight stopped, and it was found that airplanes probably provide a small "protective layer" in the atmosphere.

Science is not religion. I understand that you've probably come across people who treat it as such. But your post sounds very much like a religious and political argument, rather than a scientific debate.

Comment Re:who says global warming is a problem? (Score 1) 411

The danger of excessive CO2 is not offset by plants. Yes, CO2 is used by plants, but having extreme amounts of it in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect. The effect that climate scientists are worried about is actually relatively minor by astronomical scales - a few degrees Celsius in hundreds of years - but will have devastating effects on the comfort, economy, and livability of humans in many areas of the earth.

Comment Re:You've only begun - define pollution (Score 1) 411

> Historical temperature swings similarly show no correlation to CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

This isn't correct. We know of some historical temperature swings which don't have higher levels of CO2 but we also have some that do. The majority of climate scientists explain that a higher level of CO2 in the atmosphere cause a greenhouse effect which will raise the average temperature by a mere few degrees over hundreds of years. That sounds like nothing to us but means a lot for the overall ecosystem of Earth.

> But plants aren't harmed by CO2 - it's what they SUBSIST on.

What "AGW fuckers" which I presume you mean climate scientists are worried about is a global rise in temperatures, not plants receiving more CO2.

Comment Re:CoC (Score 1) 167

Racism = prejudice + power, not just prejudice towards other races. You can't have racism without power over someone; if you don't have that, you just have prejudice and stereotypes.

When they refer to "reversisms", it's reasonable to infer they are referring to the idea that "this is sexist towards men" or towards straight people, etc., doesn't meet their criteria for getting involved, because it's not at the level of real racism or real sexism, which involves real marginalism and not the internet version of cat fights. Not that it's not pissing people off or isn't offensive, but that the internet is the internet and there's only so much they want to deal with.

Comment Re:Could not agree more (Score 1) 413

I don't think they're equal (left and right's responsibility and effective outcomes against the relative CO2 emissions), but I won't bother arguing that because there's plenty of the internets to do that elsewhere.

What I will say is that I don't think it's correct to compare China and the entire West's percentage of CO2 emissions. It is smarter to focus on reducing emissions in your own country and be a leader in doing so, regardless of that. The technology will slowly but steadily build up to make it more efficient. The costs will go down in the long term, even if they are expensive in the short term.

Comment Re:Could not agree more (Score 2) 413

You've conflated too many groups, i.e. cherry picked data, in order to fit the evidence to your world view.

The non-teaparty population is composed of everyone... liberals, conservatives, and whatevers. Those websites are right-leaning and show that you are looking for evidence in places that fit your world view. It says that tea-partiers are more scientifically aware than conservatives as well.

Don't get me wrong - I'm glad that tea-partiers are slightly more scientifically aware, because I'm glad when anyone is more scientifically aware.

Comment Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score 1) 1083

As a gay person, I can tell you that debates of these statistics - "How many people are actually gay?" - is a popular discussion in gay circles. Many gay people think that the number is closer to 20% because, frankly, they've experienced things that lead them to believe that, such as having sexual encounters with self-identifying straight people, and confessions of people that they wouldn't tell anyone else.

But what is gay? Just one same-sex encounter out of ten thousand opposite-sex encounters? What if you like it sometimes, or at one point in your life, but not others?

In this, I defer to the Nazis as always. They were very very meticulous about their sociographic statistics, what with their racial theories and all. They found that around 8% of the German population was gay. That number seems about right to me.

"When it comes to humility, I'm the greatest." -- Bullwinkle Moose