Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:The argument from environmentalism... (Score 1) 107

I expected your comment to be modded funny. Smoke a joint to save the environment. I consider myself environmentally conscious, but (if you weren't actually trying to get a laugh) that argument is ridiculous. I'm sure nobody runs just for the high. They run for their health. Telling people they shouldn't run because it's bad for the environment is wack. Probably modded up by obese people because it justifies not exercising.

Comment Multiple Stages (Score 1) 684

Send supplies ahead of the crew in several stages. Continue sending supplies after the crew has landed, giving them both the tools they need to build a colony as well as backup supplies should their plans fail.

Comment Re:Science! (Score 1) 737

Anna. Yes, there is a difference. Scientists (alone or in groups) publishing science that conflicts with mainstream is encouraged. But that's not the case here. This is about very large corporations (oil, gas, and coal) being accused of deliberately misleading the public for their own gain. That is, these companies are very well aware of the actual science, which poses a threat to their business. So they fund campaigns to cast doubt on solid scientific evidence.

This has happened before, repeatedly. Most notably with cigarettes, where the companies' own internal documents, from their own scientists proved cigarettes caused cancer in the 50's. Yet, for over 30 years they publicly denied any health issues and actively spread doubt on the growing evidence against cigarettes. "Merchants of Doubt" is an outstanding account of the history and methods industry has used and is using today to spread doubt on otherwise sound science.

I don't know that I'm for RICO. I am attempting to thwart attempts to misrepresent the argument, as was the case here.

Comment Re:Climate Change Deniers aren't stupid... (Score 1) 737

So we know we're changing the climate, but don't know how it's going to work out. Might be bad. Possibly not. Conclusion ... continue on with the experiment.

Found some tasty berries in the woods and started eating them. Might be good for me. Might kill me. Could possibly make me immune to snake bites. Tastes good - I'll keep eating them.

Comment Re:Science! (Score 1) 737

If you had read the linked article, you would know that this is a RICO "investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change", not scientists submitting unorthodox views, as you are attempting to frame it.

Comment Re:Science! (Score 1) 737

What's up with the mods? How is this obviously weak argument a 5? The data was solid for cigarettes and it is solid (and has been) for AGW.

This isn't about censorship. It's about massive and deliberate deception that causes harm. Cigarettes killed people for 40+ years AFTER the evidence was clear. Clear data showing cigarettes caused disease and death wasn't enough because the cigarette companies launched a massive campaign to cast doubt among people. The same thing is happening now, scarily often from the same groups and people (Heritage Foundation, Fred Singer). "Merchants of Doubt" contains impressive research on the subject, for those who want details.

Comment Re:Whoa! Consider the Law (Score 1) 737

Do know a single person who wants to "slam the brakes on business"? A global conspiracy among client scientists to slow down the economy - how does anybody take that seriously? The same people who say the government is hopelessly inefficient and incompetent claim the same government has coordinated a global effort to deceive the public, recruiting the entire population of publishing climate scientists for 20+ years. To what end? "to slam the brakes on business". (Brain explodes)

Or maybe it's this simple. Those that stand to lose money (coal, oil, and gas) launch a campaign to cast doubt on the science that would hurt their core business.

This has happened before with cigarettes. History is a great teacher.

And before you throw labels at me, I value liberty above "safety". I voted for Ron Paul and Gary Johnson in the previous two elections. Ultimately I look for the truth, and it is as clear as clear gets for AGW.

Comment Re:Does anyone remember... (Score 1) 248

Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's not wrong or harmful.

Stacking the ISO committee to ram through OOXML was wrong and harmful, but legal. Breaking Java on Windows was wrong and harmful. The "embrace, extend, and extinguish" tactic used often as with Kerberos was wrong and harmful, but legal.

I think the term evil is misused here on slashdot and I wouldn't call Microsoft's acts evil. I would call it despicable. I would call it dishonorable. That anyone would think this is a good thing just makes me sad.

Comment Re:Obama should do a fact check... (Score 1) 413

You're arguing a false premise, that choosing to eliminate our production of greenhouse gases is simultaneously a choice to ignore poverty in India. I don't consider myself a "selfish self-centered coastal living fuck", yet I am concerned about global warming. I'm also concerned about helping people in poverty and do contribute to that cause as well.

And you're obviously a global warming denier. Otherwise you would realize that while the Earth will go on, the threat of global warming is to our entire race. It's impossible to predict exactly what will happen, but as Musk and others have said, greenhouse gas emissions are "the dumbest experiment in history". Once you've realized the full effect, you can't exactly start the experiment over and do things differently next time. It won't matter that the poor people in India were able to improve their standard of living with cheap coal if that coal makes the planet inhabitable for humans.

A rock store eventually closed down; they were taking too much for granite.