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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:More ambiguous cruft: hardly. (Score 1) 495

by riverat1 (#48947349) Attached to: The Gap Between What The Public Thinks And What Scientists Know

That's a reference to the climate science deniers in the previous sentence. More specifically someone whose ideology drives them to be "skeptical" of some scientific knowledge but who will uncritically accept something that appears to support their position even though usually they're just misinterpreting what was said. As an example they hear the news that Antarctic sea ice is increasing in extent lately and automatically assume that means it must be getting colder therefore no global warming. They never bother to dig deeper into the scientific research about it.

Comment: Re:More ambiguous cruft: hardly. (Score 1) 495

by riverat1 (#48944431) Attached to: The Gap Between What The Public Thinks And What Scientists Know

Mueller was a skeptic in the true sense of the word in that he had is reservations about global warming data but when he researched it he was convinced by the evidence. That's as opposed to the many climate science deniers who like to call themselves skeptics. Most of them are "skeptical" of mainstream climate science but will wholeheartedly accept anything that appears to call it into question with no skepticism at all.

Also, his study failed to adequately account for the heat-island effect, and had trouble getting published for that reason.

I've heard nothing about problems Berkeley Earth had with the heat island effect. As I understand it the reason they had trouble getting some of their early stuff published was because it was just a repeat of stuff that had already been published by others and was therefore redundant.

Comment: Re:More ambiguous cruft (Score 1) 495

by riverat1 (#48944199) Attached to: The Gap Between What The Public Thinks And What Scientists Know

I am an engineer with chemical and biological background. I've seen more than I want to in commercialized conclusions by PhD scientists that were really just hired guns, corporate and academic. In some cases they got unhired because I proved things otherwise and showed long stretches of repeated, highly biased results.

I think paycheck corruption in science today is even worse, like with the CAGW promoters.

In over 25 years of intense study (the IPCC was formed in 1988) no one has yet "showed long stretches of repeated, highly biased results." You'd think if climate scientists were really practicing the bad science that they get accused of it wouldn't be that hard to take them down and get them "unhired".

Comment: Re:More ambiguous cruft (Score 1) 495

by riverat1 (#48944053) Attached to: The Gap Between What The Public Thinks And What Scientists Know

A scientist first understands the process of science. That's why people who try to dismiss non-climate scientists with a wave of the hand and the statement "you aren't a climate scientist", when the issue is how data are handled, are wrong. Any scientist has standing to say "you can't just throw out all the data that doesn't support your hypothesis and then claim you've proven it."

While what you say is true I have yet to see anyone prove that climate scientists have mishandled their data in any significant way.

Comment: Re:Total disservice to taxpayers (Score 1) 292

by riverat1 (#48935497) Attached to: US Air Force Selects Boeing 747-8 To Replace Air Force One

The Airbus A-380 is about 20% less costly than the 747-8. They're wasting taxpayer money as usual.

Since the 747-8 is closely related to the older model 747s that they modified for the current AF1 fleet it should but much easier and less costly to make the modifications for the new ones. Modifications for the A-380 would be completely new designs.

Comment: Re:More proof (Score 1) 666

by riverat1 (#48891639) Attached to: US Senate Set To Vote On Whether Climate Change Is a Hoax

The last CO2 spike comparable to the current one was the PETM about 55.8 million years ago. The rate of carbon increase then appears to be at least 10 times slower than it is now and there was a mass extinction that accompanied it on benthic formaminifera. If the rate today was 10 times slower ocean life would have a much better chance of being able to adapt.

Comment: Re:Interstellar missions... (Score 4, Insightful) 211

by riverat1 (#48891545) Attached to: At Oxford, a Battery That's Lasted 175 Years -- So Far

I don't think that's true. On a cloudy but windy night in the desert it doesn't get nearly as cold as on a clear windless night all other things being equal. In fact when I searched for "Desert nighttime cooling" here is the first thing that came up. It basically says under clear low humidity conditions at night radiative cooling is by far the the largest reason for cooling.

Friction is a drag.

Working...