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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:disclosure (Score 1) 448 448

$120k is a lot of money if you don't have anything else to use it on: eg. postdocs, conferences etc, which is precisely his situation. He was paid to have a desk at a prestigious university; put his name on papers dealing with output of the Sun's energy; and then sit back when everyone calls him an astrophysicist at a prestigious astrophysics institute and take the money.

Comment: Re:Even Better Title: How to Profit from Climate C (Score 1) 448 448

Can you show me that climatologists are getting their money from "green" industries? Because I think paying an institution to accept an engineer into an astrophysics institute so his publications on solar output can seem more authoritative is as conspiratorial as it gets: But you just skip over that bit - how convenient.

Comment: Re:Pro-Boy Bias? (Score -1, Flamebait) 493 493

> The modern education system from kindergarten to doctoral studies is biased against boys Yeah right. So we need positive discrimination laws for boys? Sorry girls, your barely 100 years of voting and maybe 50 years of being allowed in university lectures (though they were booed as they walked in) is just too much for us boys to handle.

Comment: Re: Yep it is a scam (Score 1) 667 667

but the Earth had warning and cooling periods before men had any influence.

I never understood why people think this is an argument for anything. We're talking about subject matters like paleoclimatology and the experts in the field who work on climate change. They know this shit.

That's why AGW is so dangerous - they know that there has never been climate change this *fast* before. *All* the other times it took hundreds of thousand of years to do the same thing that is now happening in a few hundred.

Comment: Re:Yep it is a scam (Score 1) 667 667

No it's not. Just because DDT doesn't increase the risk of breast cancer that it is somehow safe.

A Lancet review of epidemiological studies concluded that that DDT causes cancers of the liver, and pancreas, that there is mixed evidence that it causes cancers of the testes, and that it probably does not contribute to cancers of the rectum, prostate, endometrium, lung, or stomach.

(Rogan WJ, Chen A (2005). "Health risks and benefits of bis(4-chlorophenyl)-1,1,1-trichloroethane (DDT)". Lancet 366 (9487): 763–73.)

DDT is linked with a lot of development problems - especially at the levels needed for malaria eradication.

I think it's healthy that we're debating whether or not a chemical, that has both beneficial and harmful effects, should be used - but risk assessment isn't cut and dry.

Comment: Re:Cue the Deniers (Score 1) 360 360

Be there; done that. Wattsupwiththat should in no way be taken seriously by anyone. http://www.skepticalscience.co...

"...the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study (BEST) finds that urban heating has an influence on global temperature trends that is “nearly negligible” and that what effect has been observed is even slightly negative, which is to say that temperature trends in urban areas are actually cooler than the trends measured at rural sites, and that the Earth's land surface has warmed approximately 1C on average since 1950."

You are an insult to my intelligence! I demand that you log off immediately.

Working...