Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Someone explain the problem with these bills? (Score 1) 429

by riverat1 (#49193445) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

As to climate change, where did that study happen even once much less twice?

What an inane question. Climate theory is composed of thousands of studies done by thousands of researchers over the past nearly 200 years. It started in the 1820's when Joseph Fourier discovered that the Earth was warmer than it should be through simple black-body radiative rules. In the late 1850's John Tyndall quantified the radiative properties of many gases including greenhouse gases such as water vapor, CO2 and methane. In the 1890's Svante Arrhenius quantified the relationship between CO2 and temperatures. In the 1950's the US Air Force did intense studies of CO2's radiative effects while developing heat seeking missiles. Also in the 1950's Gilbert Plass published several papers on the subject including one titled "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change". Since then it's just continued building. That anthropogenic global warming is occurring is just an emergent property of looking the implications of all of those studies.

I'm still waiting for the anti-AGW'ers to produce anything like that scientific body of work.

Comment: Re:Someone explain the problem with these bills? (Score 1) 429

by riverat1 (#49191127) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

I specifically called out your statement:

Most of what the EPA is citing is stuff from AGW studies... why would you have a problem with sources being disclosed and data being reproducible?

I specifically asked you for examples where the EPA didn't disclose their sources or where the data from those studies wasn't available.

Comment: Re:Someone explain the problem with these bills? (Score 1) 429

by riverat1 (#49186699) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

Most of what the EPA is citing is stuff from AGW studies... why would you have a problem with sources being disclosed and data being reproducible?

Can you cite an instance where that isn't the case already? As far as I can see it's all based on openly published peer reviewed science although you may have to go through an additional layer like the IPCC WG1 report to get to the original source.

Comment: Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score 1) 429

by riverat1 (#49186573) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

It requires a regulating body to base their decisions on public data. That means data must be opened to the public AND they aren't allowed to pass regulations that go against sound science.

I'd like you to point out at least a couple of instances where that isn't true of the EPA's findings already.

But go ahead - tell me how global warming is a hoax perpetrated by a conspiracy of thousands of scientists around the world for political reasons. [snicker]

Comment: Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score 5, Informative) 429

by riverat1 (#49185431) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

What's weird about making the data from scientific studies publically available? Frankly, I think the data from all government funded research should be public domain.

This whole flap arose over some studies from Harvard medical school where the population being studied were told their identity would be protected. Some Republican Congressmen when holding a hearing about proposed EPA regulations based on the study asked for specific information that could lead to the identification of individual participants and the researchers refused to provide it. Apparently the collective statistics provided by the study were not good enough for them.

So what's more important, the desires of Congress or the privacy of the individuals who participated in the study?

Comment: Re:Last straw? (Score 1) 532

The reason we have ISIS is that we were in such a rush to leave IRAQ we didn't bother to finish stabilizing the situation.

We could be there 50 years and still have no hope of stabilizing the situation (maybe if we just installed another dictator like Saddam). Stabilizing is not something we can impose but is something they'll have to work out internally.

Comment: Re:Let it happen (Score 1) 340

by riverat1 (#49165943) Attached to: We Stopped At Two Nuclear Bombs; We Can Stop At Two Degrees.

Ah... You apparently believe that climate scientists are "cooking" the numbers for nefarious reasons. The reasons and methods for the adjustments are all out in the open although it takes some scientific knowledge to understand them. Here is an explanation from Berkeley Earth about their data set and filtering. Everything they do there is out in the open.

So I await your scientifically based reasons not to accept the current adjusted temperature data sets.

"I'm not afraid of dying, I just don't want to be there when it happens." -- Woody Allen

Working...