Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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:Climate trolls consistently misleading (Score 0) 370

The cost of mitigating climate change are insignificant next to the costs of ignoring it.

That is your point of view. There is no consensus on this point of view. There possibly might be a majority, but there certainly isn't a consensus.

Record storms, droughts, floods, forest fires, and heat waves are costing hundreds of billions and tens of thousands of lives right now.

Oft repeated memes full of hyperbole and nonsense. Also funny how CC has become a modern 'God of the Gaps'. A notable natural disaster occurs, A storm, a flood, a forest fire, and instant response is it must be climate change.

IOW: "we don't really knooooow, so lets not do anything!" Standard climate troll approach, going back decades.

Reading comprehension fail. My original point is that alot of narrative lacks logical consistency or rigor yet demands to be taken seriously. Happily measure one thing and then try to palm it of as a measure of something else, (i.e. my original comment), then get upset because 'deniers' are running amok instead of paying their requisite tithes to the CC doomsday cult.

Comment Climate science, consistently misleading (Score 1, Insightful) 370

From TFA:

Many legislators regularly deny that there is a scientific consensus, or even broad scientific support, for government action to address climate change.

And this:

For instance, we noted whether the testimony indicated that global warming or climate change was happening and whether any climate change was attributable (in part) to anthropogenic sources.

There is an enormous chasm between these two ideas. Yes there is a broad concensus that we are changing the composition of our atmosphere and this should cause the planet to warm to some extent. *Alot* of sceptics agree with this. But there is no consensus on what the level of warming will be nor is there consensus on the idea that the changes are harmful/damaging to our interests or the planet or that an urgent mitigation based policy framework is needed. There is an enormous amount of disagreement here, scientific disagreement, as there should be because honest truth is we do not know what impacts are likely to be and there are plenty of competing points of view, in literature on this.

Climate science discussion is so slippery, constantly confusing, conflating and switching in utterly different subjects of discussion. The most generous critique I can muster is that this is at very best, chronic intellectual sloppiness/laziness. And people wring their hands and lament on the lack of trust....

Comment Re:Java, [...] most bug-filled, hackable software (Score 1) 106

I agree and I am too an advocate of Java for desktop and server side dev. To clarify my OP, when I said " too difficult to keep it secure if nothing because of it's sheer weight", what I meant was secure in terms of fulfulling the design intent of Java's sandbox model so that you can safely run untrusted code in an applet embedded in a browser. Pretty hard to secure a sandbox when it's perimeter rivals the Mexican border.

Comment Re:Java, [...] most bug-filled, hackable software (Score 1) 106

My understanding is that most of those exploits are browser/sandbox related, and nothing like arbitrary code injection exploits that have marred Flash recently. Running a full 'sandboxed' JVM in a browser needs to be taken out the back and shot and on this basis java is indeed probably very insecure, Oracle should of flagged this as a legacy setup disabed by default a very long time ago; but this doesn't mean the entire platform is fundamentally broke. Having said that it would be interesting to compare instances of malware exploits for typical desktop internet connected PC by actual vector and see how java related vectors actually measure up.

Comment Java, [...] most bug-filled, hackable software (Score 4, Interesting) 106

A light-weight article, typified by this:

Java, one of the most bug-filled, hackable software products the world

Indeed criticism should be leveled at Java for trying to retain one of it's original design intents of being a web safe sandbox while at the same time trying to be a golden hammer in pretty much every other problem/solution domains, server backend, rich client, embedded device etc meaning the platform got so huge and unwieldly it was too difficult to keep it secure if nothing because of it's sheer weight. But to call it the most hackable software products is just stupid and ignorant. Does the author understand the basic concept of memory management exploits? Buffer overruns exploits are virtually non-existant in Java, caused only by rare defects in the JVM itself.

Comment Plenty of circumstancial evidence of fraud (Score 4, Insightful) 110

Firstly, their claim on their website "While complex, the Mars One Mission is feasible. The science and technology required to place humans on Mars exists today. ", is provably false and it is reasonable to expect authors of this statement know this to be false. First thing that always comes to my mind is delivery configuration for soft land something closely resembling required tonnage on the surface, including the 4 meat bags they claim they are able to send. Simply put, no viable configuration currently exists. When you look at tonnage Apollo landed on the moon, vs what government space agencies have successfully landed on Mars so far, vs what NASA is currently developing, there is an enormously absurd leap of faith to say landing ppl on Mars is feasible with today's tech.

Secondly, a document like this :, just stinks of handwaving with overuse of technical flourishes, fails to deal with funadmental issues, i.e. the weight issue, and seems to be created with an intent to deceive and create false assurance that mission profile is both well defined and accessible.

Accepting that proof of fraud is far from conclusive, the whole thing just reeks to high heaven of fraud.

Comment Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score 1) 719

That would be all well and good if people were to scrupulously stick to a reasonable definition of 'denier' vs 'skeptic'. But this doesn't happen, denier is mud to be flung around and it is flung far and wide and all that is happening here is to try and legitimise this practice of use de-legitimising snarling at people that one disagrees with.

Consider this wiki: "Steve McIntyre is a former statistician and minerals prospector and currently a prominent global warming denier.". Just a hateful little snarl directed at someone who most certainly doesn't merit it. McIntyre has never made his view on AGW public, he has gone to great pains to emphasize this. I personally suspect he is somewhere between 'jury is out' and a lukewarmer; but who knows. His focus is mainly on peleoclimate statistics. By your definition he is in no way a denier.

But it is so typical of this whole AGW issue, people play fast and loose with definitions, data, evidence. A massive lack of imprecision, anyone who comes along want precision is also a denier apparently. Amongst climate skeptics community they self identify with two broad camps, lukewarmers and sky dragons. The two terms are well defined, it is quite clear what is what. Consensus community could co-opt these definitions too, but that would risk legitimising the lukewarmers, better and easier to tar them all as deniers.

Comment Re:LOL. 'Climate change' indeed. (Score 1) 228

"catastrophic" is an apt adjective because the fear around AGW is palpable and relentless.

The public narrative is a steady stream of messages of things getting much getting worse, its accelerating, worse than we thought, all the terrible things it will cause, dangerous tipping points, all sorts of calamities, all this sort of language is the language of impending catastrophe, it is a fair and reasonable description of the nature of the broader discussion.

I find this quite recent strategy of trying to distance oneself from the enduring narrative, which has a rich and documented public record quite amusing actually.

Merely sneering at the usage of the word catastrophe is not really a compelling argument, is there actually a point being made beyond the sneering? Or is this typical climate change argumentation where one pounds the table and sneers at their detractors? I your concern that you feel the word is in some way pejorative? In the same way 'denier' is pejorative perhaps?

Comment Quant Suff the scientific people roared. (Score 2) 207

Surely they know better than to not yield before the awesome explanatory power of AGW; which succinctly explains every possible and conceivable observation. I am relieved that more learned people than them are quick to point out that those causes have in turn their own causes and those causes are almost certainly where AGW manifests.

Comment Re:fast forward 5 years.... (Score 1) 143

Speaking of fallacies, the use of CAGW is generally associated with a strawman, goalpost moving or loaded language fallacies, depending on context.

Nice try, but no. CAGW = Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming and it describes the point of view of alarmism on climate quite well. When public narrative out there uses terms like 'greatest moral challenge of our time', and slogans like 'no jobs on a dead planet', the inference is quite clear : the proponents of such points of view are clearly advocating that a global catastrophe is looming. There is an appalling barefaced hypocrisy in an article that takes um-bridge with the term CAGW, which I assert is not emotive, but factual : AGW that is bad enough to be catastrophic which is a valid hypothesis and a point of view held by many, yet willy-nilly throws the term 'denier' around. Some real class and intellectually meticulous conduct on display there.

My comment was about the cyclical nature of some "skeptic" arguments.

Maybe you can actually reference skeptics how have done this, flip-flopped on data sets, doesn't change the fact that warming is not as much as projected. And you yourself keep changing your argument without explaining why you are abandoning your prior argument, first it was all statistical quackery, then it's not a big deal this slowdown, and now you are trying the 'a good defence is an offence' strategy by asserting skeptics are cyclical and selective in their datasets, when this is exactly what alarmists are doing by abandoning discussion of trends in favour of discussing instances where Tmax records are being set.

It is interesting and has been done.

Yeah that is interesting, the NASA link though is more about how the histogram of anomalies is trending decade to decade, I assume it is yearly or seasonally adjusted anomalies here, not daily Tmin Tmax records, but it shows a growing fat tail anomaly which does support overall higher likelyhood of max temps. SKS link is as trustworthy as SKS always is (as in not at all). My original point is that record counts in a period of a pause after a period of warming is normal outcome for variable highly autocorrelated data. It does not invalidate the observation of a pause. It is actually consistent with it. The concluding point is that counting record events simply isn't a robust mechanism for qualitative analysis. When some skeptics make a big deal out of record winter lows, they are shouted down, and rightly so and they are shouted down by skeptics too. But presumably reporting on Tmax records and saying to paraphrase : "on-noes is the global warming!", is perfectly fine. Presumably. Actually... no.... it isn't okay.

Comment Re:fast forward 5 years.... (Score 1) 143

Yes, plenty of whacky ideas out there and including some skeptics that think co2 cannot warm the planet, i.e. Sky dragon's. We are united in our belief that such views are almost certainly incorrect.

I guess it is easier to focus on the the fringe argument and try and represent all skeptics as being one and the same than confront lukewarmer arguments, which are becoming increasingly uncomfortable in light of actual observational data.

CAGW predicted rapid and accelerating warming. But the data fails to bear it out, so post-hoc rationalisations are put forth and the capacity of the hypothesis to yield falsifiability tests is shrinking : which urges the question is the development of this hypothesis robust?

Your comment " Every time we hit a new high temperature", is with respect absurd particularly given admonishments about dodgy statistics in this thread and the OP. Temp data is highly variable and auto-correlated. New high records is not special with such data and it cannot be meaningfully interpreted. Previously the message was focus on the trend, but the trend is failing to provide the correct narrative so the focus now is on 'records'. I bet you cannot even meaningfully say how many records would be considered normal and how many would be alarming. An interesting null would be to compare # high temp records against # of low temp records. I actually did that with a subset of data (Australia), last summer. There was only marginally more hi temp records than low temp, and depending on how I processed the data I could actually yield counts of low temp data that was higher, yet headlines were along lines of: OMG! So many hi temperature records! Counting records are meaningless in any sort of objective qualitative analysis, and only counting one type of record with such data is just all sorts of wrong.

Comment Re:fast forward 5 years.... (Score 1) 143

The pause is a real physical phenomena which the climatology community is now trying to explain, this is now broadly accepted and is not a fringe skeptic position as you seem to insist on trying to frame it. Even in IPCC AR5 Report deals with it. WG1 Chapter 9 for example: "Box 9.2: Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the past 15 years". Download it and read it for yourself. This section in the report posits a number of broad explanations, statistical artefact is not one of them.

Let me elaborate further on why the SKS graph is a strawman, I assumed my initial comment would be obvious and sufficient. Anyway it is because most cogent skeptics do not dispute that the world was warmed in the 20th century, that warming post 1970 was quite pronounced and that co2 does have a warming effect; these observations are not controversial. The SKS graph implies that skeptics wilfully ignore the observed warming. It is a stupid lie vigorously repudiated, and by virtue of this that SKS continue to publish it makes them wilful liars, wilfully misrepresenting the point of view of their detractors.

Comment Re:fast forward 5 years.... (Score 0) 143

Move your endpoint forward a few years beyond the 1998 el-nino, and the OLS fit is still flat or at best trending much much less than anticipated, depending on what data set you use. Fact is, even with most generous pro-warming interpretation of the data, you must concede that the data clearly indicates that it is, at best, not warming nearly as much as predicted.

The conversation has largely moved on. There is now lots of conversation on explaining why the pause, as opposed to previous conversation which was along the lines of that there is no pause. The pause is real and merits an explanation.

Getting back to the SKS escalator infographic. Although it is quite a clever piece of polemic, it is at heart just a dumb strawman argument and infers a point of view which is not, nor ever was articulated by any CAGW skeptic that I am aware of.

Chemist who falls in acid will be tripping for weeks.