Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Cloud formation albedo (Score 1) 378

there's this huge majority that say there's not enough data to draw strong conclusions

Where did you get that idea? In fact, where did you get the figure of 4000 articles endorsing AGW? The original link (Powell's study) makes no mention of that.

Perhaps you're confusing it with Cook et al 2013, which does say that 4,014 of 11,944 papers "expressed no position". Reading the actual study however shows that 0.7% of papers examined rejected AGW and a tiny 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

Let me repeat: of 11,944 published papers, 66.4% expressed no position on AGW - they concerned themselves only with a specific area of climate science - and no conclusions can be drawn from them. Only 1% felt the evidence was inconclusive OR counter to AGW. Thus, of the papers that did take a position, including that no conclusion was possible yet, 97% supported AGW.

If you've read "analyses" that claim otherwise, they are being deliberately misleading.

Plus of course the half-dozen other studies over the last decade confirm and verify these results.

Comment Re:Let it be (Score 1) 378

Which is an opinion from a single writer with no scientific credentials; not exactly a detailed critique. But if lay opinions are important now, here's some much more influential people that support the Stern Report's conclusions:

* Tony Blair, former Prime Minister of the UK
* Paul Wolfowitz, former President of the World Bank
* Claude Mandil, Executive Director of the International Energy Agency
* Kirit Parikh, Member, Planning Commission, Government of India
* Adair Turner, Former Director of UK Confederation of British Industry and Economic Advisor to Sustainable Development Commission
* Sir Rod Eddington, Adviser to the UK Government on the long term links between transport and economic growth, and former chief executive of British Airways

Comment Re:Cloud formation albedo (Score 1) 378

Do please enlighten us; what "plenty of evidence" do you refer to?

The reason the deniers are in such a minority among actual climatologists is because they have failed to provide convincing evidence to back up their claims, whereas there are many, many studies that show clear and unequivocal evidence of warming, and strong correlation with the calculated result from observed anthropogenic emissions. None of the alternative hypotheses have anything like the same correlation, and have been judged to be far less likely than the obvious candidate: human CO2 emissions.

If someone can provide solid and convincing evidence of a natural cause to the observed warming, then they'll be famous, but nobody has come up with any. If all the "skeptics" can do is attempt to cast patchwork doubts while ignoring that the data that has been confirmed and re-confirmed by multiple other observations of independent indicators, then IMHO they're more deserving of the label "zealot", and it's no surprise that most climatologists tuned them out long ago. The real scientists have seen the actual data; they know better.

Comment Re:Cloud formation albedo (Score 1) 378

So... 4,000 articles explicitly or implicitly agreed that AGW was real - and only 24 articles explicitly or implicitly disagreed. Since the rest did not even address the question, they're not relevant here.

That still sounds like a 99.4% agreement to me. 166 out of 167 climatologists (from a sample of 4024 relevant papers) are convinced by the observed data; human-caused global warming is very real.

Comment Re:In other words - they were doing their job (Score 1) 133

Or, much more likely, non-straw-man scenario - trade boycott.

Australian exporters get their contracts cancelled, and Indonesian buyers go elsewhere. Wave goodbye to our third-largest agriculture market and a good chunk of that $14 billion of trade. How business-friendly is that?

All because our Glorious Leader can't bring himself to make even an insincere apology, thus sending the clear message that not only did we spy on them to gain unfair economic advantage, we're proud of it and we'll happily do it again. Would you do business with someone who regularly, illegally, and unashamedly rifled through your office looking at your private files for something to catch you out with?

Comment Re:You say that like that's a good thing... (Score 1) 168

Don't like proprietary apps on your tablet? Then flash your own choice of completely FOSS rom. CyanogenMod makes a few, and so do many others.

Granted this is (a little) beyond the average user - but the average user *wants* most of those proprietary apps and services; it's just you that doesn't want them (and if it's beyond you as well, you could always pay someone to do it for you).

Comment Re:Make it complete without Google apps (Score 1) 168

Well yeah. The Android apps you would miss out on are (only) the ones that are designed to require Google's cloud services specifically (Drive storage, Maps navigation, Google's voice search, Play games syncing etc). No big surprise there.

There are entire categories of apps which don't need any cloud services of course, and many others where the apps are written to use alternative services, or where the bulk of the app is entirely usable even when a given service is unavailable (e.g. when sold through Amazon's app store). In all cases though, it's the developer's decision, and Google's cloud service APIs are completely optional & not part of the base Android framework.

Comment Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court (Score 1) 393

What record? You linked to a blog that picks quotes from a book written by a mining consultant and an economics professor. There's no record visible there - no context, no dates, nothing hard - only someone allegedly repeating claims from authors with obvious agendas, that we can't begin to verify. Oh, and an unreferenced op-ed with loaded language and unproved allegations that gives no actual contrary data, but only raises questions from a known skeptic (Lindzen) while ignoring the opinions of all the other scientists mentioned.

But you go ahead and believe whatever random opinions you like. We'll just stick to the data that's been repeatedly verified in a dozen different ways.

Comment Re:Green Wall of China (Score 1) 279

Thanks; still looking for citations though, esp. for 1) and 3).

2) From my link:

As a major measure to improve energy and economic structure, the plan aims to cut coal consumption in the total energy mix to below 65 per cent by 2017, down from 66.8 per cent in 2012.

... which is admittedly not that significant, but it's also not "increasing the coal being dug" as you claimed (at least not relatively).
4) Agree that China's promises are not exactly iron-clad, but unless you have a reliable citation that says the opposite, as you claim, then we have to go with their publicly stated position. I see no reason to accept your opinion over their "top climate negotiator".
5) Still not sure where you're going with the locally-made AE point. Everything here indicates they're moving away from coal and increasing their nuclear, natural gas, hydro etc.

Comment Re:Green Wall of China (Score 1) 279

I think you need some citations. And if you're going to declare a post "total BS", perhaps your rebuttals should be on point? Kinda like this:

1) China "will be"? UN says 28.6%, not quite "over 1/3" as you originally said.
2) China is indeed focusing on reducing pollution, but they're also cutting coal consumption, not just consuming it differently. They're using GreatPoint's catalytic hydromethanation process of coal gasification, and the CO2 produced is captured, not released.
3) Primarily stopping desertification as I said, but 500,000,000 hectares of fast-growing trees are a not-insignificant CO2 absorber, as the Chinese are quick to point out.
4) China's top climate negotiator said that China has pledged to cut its carbon intensity by 40-45% by 2020 from 2005 levels. Coal plants are no longer being approved in polluted provinces like Beijing, and their nuclear power program is one of the most ambitious programs in the world.
5) Huh?

Comment Green Wall of China (Score 1) 279

China's emissions growth is slowing, as it has implemented its own carbon trading scheme and started cleaning up the worst-polluting of its power plants.

Additionally, China has planted over 500,000 square km of trees in the north, as a desertification barrier and carbon sink. This is the largest artificial forest in the world (twice the size of Britain), and they plan to continue increasing this through to 2050.

Little known fact: It is a legal requirement for all Chinese over the age of eleven to plant at least three trees a year.

Slashdot Top Deals

In space, no one can hear you fart.