Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:No, headline is right. (Score 1) 224

It wasn't pertinent to the point I was trying to make and is covered in full in the link that I provided. Sorry if that was legitimately misleading, but my point wasn't that natural sources are so much larger than human ones per se, but that choosing volcanism was misleading and that the overall tone was too hostile.

Comment Re:No, headline is right. (Score 1) 224

I'm sorry, but what lies and bullshit am I using? I pointed out that human CO2 production IS dwarfed by natural production. I didn't go into the other facts because it didn't factor into the point that I was trying to make, that while combating people who disbelieve AGW we should be accurate. The link I gave you went into the full details. I didn't go into the full details because my point was that your comment wasn't accurate about why he was wrong and it was overly combative to boot. I'm curious as to why you're attacking me so strenuously. I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said, just that the way you've said it is overly combative and not a full answer. Yet you're attacking me by saying I'm spreading lies and bullshit.

Comment Re:No, headline is right. (Score 1) 224

I know. I'm just saying that if you combat ignorance with condescension and hostility, then the ignorant are going to continue being ignorant because of their knee-jerk reaction to the assholes on the side of science.

Or we can keep this argument in the realm of emotion, assholery, and dogma and continue in the way we've been going. I'm sure that'll work out for us in the long run.

Comment Re:No, headline is right. (Score 2) 224

While the GP is wrong in his conclusion, he's right in saying that humans don't product that much CO2 relative to nature. From http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm -

Manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. Consumption of vegetation by animals & microbes accounts for about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. Respiration by vegetation emits around 220 gigatonnes. The ocean releases about 332 gigatonnes. In contrast, when you combine the effect of fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, human CO2 emissions are only around 29 gigatonnes per year.

You're right that volcanism is a very small modern source of CO2, but human activity is still a very small minority of global output. Choosing to use volcanism as the comparison is misleading at best. The science is conclusive in favor of global warming, so accuracy and facts are enough to combat bad conclusions.

Comment Re:Let's hear it for the beancounters (Score 1) 432

I think you misunderstood his comment. While what you say is true, the marginal reward he's talking about is competitive advantage over those not cheating. If you cheat and nobody else does, you get an advantage over everybody. If you cheat and everybody else does, you get no advantage. The more people cheat the less advantage there is to cheating compared to everyone else.

That's not taking into account the other societal problems that rampant cheating creates, though, and I think everyone can agree that everyone would be better off with no cheating.

Comment Re:Dr. Evil working in Redmond? (Score 1) 245

How do you explain something like this?

Hundreds or thousands of engineers working on something and a technically unimportant piece slipping through the cracks?

Would you think with all the people Microsoft has in their employ they would assign the duty of EU Compliance Checklist Monitor to someone?

I would expect it to be a lawyer who's not embedded in the engineering department and didn't see the need or even realize the potential of checking a service pack. Taking into account that this probably isn't their primary version of windows, and it seems pretty easy for this to legitimately slip through the cracks.

Slashdot Top Deals

1: No code table for op: ++post

Working...