Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



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

Comment: Re:monkeys throwing darts... (Score 1) 371 371

Well, you can take for instance the side of the 1300 scientists that made the report that's cited here: http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/. Or the 3146 surveyed here: http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-19/world/eco.globalwarmingsurvey_1_global-warming-climate-science-human-activity.

But these guys are all funded by some organization that wants people to recycle, right?

Comment: Re:monkeys throwing darts... (Score 3, Informative) 371 371

Honestly, I think you should have kept that to yourself, because on second thought it doesn't make much sense. Nostradamus' "predictions" are incredibly ambiguous, which is why they can be made fit observations after the fact. Quantities such as degrees Celcius/Fahrenheit are not; the observations either fit within the specified level of precision or not.

Comment: Re:monkeys throwing darts... (Score 2, Insightful) 371 371

Yep. On both sides. This is why both sides have zero credibility with the other. Both sides call the others lying bastards, and for a vocal minority on both sides, they are right.

I'm curious. Who do you think is funding the side that's supported by 90% of climate scientists worldwide?

Comment: Re:Due to subtle variations in the Earth's orbit . (Score 1) 347 347

The reverse argument is equally ridiculous:

Nothing we do can combined cause global scale changes on the planet, which is nice, because then I can keep doing whatever I want.

The worst part is that very little is required to make very large impacts on carbon emissions. If everyone in the US bought a car that had half the horsepower that the car they currently own has, they could make a huge impact on their emissions.

This is clearly another case of too many mad scientists, and not enough hunchbacks.

Working...