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

 



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:Inquisition (Score 1) 377

by riverat1 (#49144411) Attached to: Lawmakers Seek Information On Funding For Climate Change Critics

Well, first of all "climate change" is a far older term than "global warming". Gilbert Plass published a paper titled "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change" in 1958. The terms are used interchangeably.

The rest of your post is just hyperbolic.

I imagine you're giggling a lot more about the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels are a major factor in Earth's climate than I am about penicillin.

Comment: Re:Equal Treatment (Score 1) 377

by riverat1 (#49143159) Attached to: Lawmakers Seek Information On Funding For Climate Change Critics

The whole issue with Soon was not that he was funded by a fossil fuel company but that he failed to disclose that he was funded by a fossil fuel company. In most cases a study funded by a government grant is required to disclose the source of the funding in published papers and it's good scientific ethics to disclose any potential conflicts of interest.

Comment: Re:Honest politicians (Score 1) 377

by riverat1 (#49142973) Attached to: Lawmakers Seek Information On Funding For Climate Change Critics

Studies funded by the National Science Foundation, a major source of the funding you're talking about, explicitly require that you note the grant number in your published papers. From that you should have no problem auditing where the money went.

More money may be spent in climate research but how much of that goes into designing, building, launching and downloading data from satellites? How much of it goes into supercomputers and other hardware? How much goes in to funding expeditions to remote sites? Very little gets spent on that sort of thing by the other side.

Comment: Re:Consensus is NOT Science (Score 1) 377

by riverat1 (#49140467) Attached to: Lawmakers Seek Information On Funding For Climate Change Critics

Consensus is the exact opposite of science. If we went with the consensus, the Earth would be flat, the sun would revolve around the Earth, the moon would be made of cheese, etc. Science is questioning *everything*. Anybody who says there is a consensus in AGW and opposition is to be silenced or downplayed is anti-science.

What are *you* afraid of?

You don't understand what a scientific consensus is. In science a consensus exists when there are no longer arguments among the practitioners of a science about a particular point in that science. It's not something they vote on, it just happens organically.

Comment: Re:Inquisition (Score 1) 377

by riverat1 (#49140247) Attached to: Lawmakers Seek Information On Funding For Climate Change Critics

It isn't the "scientific community" that is making this demand, it is the people that fund the "scientific community" producing the claims regarding global warming ^H^H "climate change." You know, the "global warming" ^H^H "climate change" studies that are used to justify calls for the government to seize all control of the economy and society to "prevent" "climate change." They want to protect their investment.

I wonder how much funding George Soros and his cronies have into this now?

Where are the "Funny" mods? I laughed so hard at that I had to explain to my coworkers what I was laughing at.

Comment: Re:Inquisition (Score 1) 377

by riverat1 (#49140165) Attached to: Lawmakers Seek Information On Funding For Climate Change Critics

What "smells like fascism"?

Doom is barreling down on us at an unprecedented rate. We have to turn over huge new powers to government to avoid this doom. Government will create huge new bureaucracies to combat the doom. The huge new bureaucracies will be financed by huge new taxes. The bureaucracies will control huge new swaths of business. Businesses will fund huge new lobbyists. Bureaucracies will create huge new regulations. Huge new regulations and huge new lobbyists will be funded through price increases. Huge new portions of subject populations' income will be devoted to governments, bureaucracies, and business. That smells like fascism.

~Loyal

One thing's for sure. If we don't do something about AGW all of those things will come to pass as the effects become more and more evident and people start demanding action.

On the other hand we could just impose a gradually increasing carbon tax* that would require a relatively small bureaucracy to administer and have the effect of making non-carbon energy sources more attractive as time goes on.

*The carbon tax should be imposed at the well/mine head or point of import of fossil fuels and possibly a tariff on imports from high carbon emitting countries. The carbon tax's proceeds should be distributed as an equal dividend to all legal US residents. The would have the effect of easing the tax's burden on low income residents and penalizing high carbon producers. The existing IRS could handle the dividend part of it.

Comment: Re:I actually have some sympathy for the utilities (Score 1) 355

by riverat1 (#49130435) Attached to: The Groups Behind Making Distributed Solar Power Harder To Adopt

I don't have a solar, but my electric bill is itemized and contains a transport cost item. It makes sense that in case of solar, you pay transport cost both ways.

Do the big generators supplying electricity to the utility pay transport costs? I don't think so. They just get paid wholesale price for the electricity they supply to the grid. At most someone with solar producing excess power should be charged for a two-way meter and the incoming electricity transport cost. They should be paid wholesale prices for the excess power they produce.

Comment: Re:yes. (Score 1) 238

by riverat1 (#49123877) Attached to: Study: Peanut Consumption In Infancy Helps Prevent Peanut Allergy

No, it is. We set ourselves apart by trying to control everything, and having everything filtered, and processed. That increases allergies. Directly by people trying to set themselves apart from biology.

I wonder if one factor in increasing allergies is that in the past before modern medicine many people with a serious allergy would die young and their allergy would never have been identified as such.

An adequate bootstrap is a contradiction in terms.

Working...