Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:So? (Score 1) 180 180

Great powers can no longer win wars because of Nukes. The calculus is quite different to what you suggest. Don't get sucked into a pissing match with some Russian nationalist. Sure they've got good weapons, but nobody seriously thinks that Russia would have a chance in a conventional war against the west.

Comment: Re:So? (Score 1) 180 180

It astounds me how naive nationalists of all kinds tend to be. The Ukranians have the same dignity as every other country, and being crushed into a civil war is a high price to pay for a bunch of Russians to feel "proud" of their country. It is rather pathetic really.

Comment: Probably sugar (Score 1) 409 409

The culprit is probably sugar, although there may be other confounding factors. Whatever the cause, metabolic disorder is going to cost more and more each year if nothing is done about it. Subsidizing the medical consequences of eating lots of refined sugar is perhaps the biggest negative externality in the economy ever.

Comment: Your analysis lacks historical context (Score 2) 637 637

I also submit that Global warming / Climate Change has been ruined by the alarmists overstating there case rather than presenting clear and accurate statistics and claims.

There is enough blame to go around all sides of the political debate. But the science was always clear. The NAS showed that there was scientific consensus in 1979, and the public was on board, until Luntz, and some ex-tobacco propagandists got at it in the mid 1990s. Their actions are a matter of public record, but for some reason most people aren't interested in the actual history, except for some historians. And the political manipulation continues. Part of that is to always accuse the other guy of exactly what you are doing.

Comment: Re:No Agenda (Score 2) 637 637

If someone agrees with you, they have the "truth". If someone disagrees, they have an agenda.

Why don't you read the original research, examine the /evidence/, replicate it if you want, and then decide. Suppose you like easy answers that fit your preconceived world view. So no agenda there.

Comment: Re:Pack of Nonsense (Score 2) 637 637

The article in question is really just a sly way of arguing that climate change deniers' brains are deficient, compared to readers whose superior brains have recognized the evidence for climate change.

The first rule of crankery is to generate thoughts to defend said crankery.

If you think something is all one way or the other, then that should raise a red flag that you are deluding yourself.

Comment: Re:It seems like we need grave threats to humanity (Score 4, Insightful) 637 637

Some disasters came true. (e.g., the collapse of the atlantic fisheries). Some were averted. (e.g., the ozone hole, or, acid rain.) Some were bogus. (e.g., religious based end-times.)

There is such a thing as nuance, and understanding. Just because some people like beating the drums of doom doesn't mean that there is no problem that needs to be fixed.

Comment: No-one is trying to change your mind. (Score 1) 637 637

Scientists who study political opinion on this issue are not interested in engaging you because they know there is no way to change the mind of "true believers". So no-one serious thinks they will change your mind by making fun of you. If you think about it, a smart person like you should be able to figure out the point of this type of research.

Comment: Re: Wonder why "climate change" ain't taken seriou (Score 2) 637 637

You're evading the point. The Pentagon has long listed climate change as a national security threat because it is a threat multiplier. The top brass did their own analysis on whether the science is real. Keep in mind that most of the armed services vote GOP.

Comment: Re:Again? (Score 1) 637 637

Haha, by their own lights all cranks think they have the truth. Afterall, you probably think you know better than all those scientists, probably because of some lame conspiracy theory. The simple truth is that cranks of all kinds hold the opinions they do because they pay no immediate price for their false beliefs -- and if they /changed/ their beliefs, they could pay an immediate price in terms of status, friendships, or even their job. But scientists are in it just for the money, right?

Comment: Re:been there don't that (Score 1) 637 637

Yeah, the world will be a better place if large parts become uninhabitable, and sea rise destroys most of our property, and we have to move agriculture. Heaven forbid we pursue any of the near-zero cost solutions that take money away from major GOP donors. I mean, think of the crime of asking Koch and Exxon to come up with new business models!

Comment: Re:slowly unfurling crisis? (Score 2) 637 637

Climate was a lot different in the past as well, e.g., sea level was 70 feet higher. The sun was a lot dimer in the past as well. Change isn't the problem, but the rate of change can be. I wish you could see how facile your argument is... but you're probably just dreaming up other ways why you are right and I am wrong.

"It takes all sorts of in & out-door schooling to get adapted to my kind of fooling" - R. Frost

Working...