Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Let the informed battles begin (Score 0) 413

When I look at the situation I see a lot of "skeptical" misinformation being propagated from the fossil fuel industry (aka the Denial Machine). The massive amounts of money that the fossil fuel industry has to throw at influencing the debate dwarfs the combined size of all the "green energy" business in the world.
It's part of why I'm skeptical of the "skeptics".

Comment Re:My beliefs (Score 1) 695

As you point out: The farms are now where we know the farming to be good. Along with the farms is all their infrastructure that will have to migrate.
... but there's another issue I'm not clear on:
Do we know if the soil further north will be as productive as the soil that is currently being farmed?

Comment Re:Not a result of Global Warming. (Score 1) 147

Why does it matter what non-scientists have to say (pro- or con-) about the scientific theory of Global Climate Change? The theory is either mostly based on sound scientific reasoning, or it isn't; What the snake oil salesmen say doesn't change that.
The line of thinking that you have expressed reminds me of how Creationists used to argue that the theory of Evolution must be false because they believe it advocates an "atheistic" view of the universe.

Comment Re:Different thing (Score 3, Interesting) 776

Interesting that you should mention the Vostok ice core data. Most Climate Change "truthers" aren't very familiar with the scientific data about Climate Change.
I'd like to draw your attention to something interesting about the Vostok ice core data:
You'll notice that, in the last 400,000 years (spanning multiple Ice Ages and inter-glacial periods), the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide never exceeded 300ppm. We currently stand at ~390ppm.

Comment Re:Bla Bla Bla (Score 1) 420

The Green House Effect caused by greenhouse gasses is known to increase the global average surface temperature by ~32C... and yet is absolutely incapable of being influenced by human emissions of the same green house gasses according to some people.

Submission + - Who's Bankrolling the Climate-Change Deniers? 1

Hugh Pickens writes writes: "Bryan Walsh writes in Time Magazine that climate denialism exists in part because there has been a long-term, well-financed effort on the part of conservative groups and corporations to distort global-warming science. "The blows have been struck by a well-funded, highly complex and relatively coordinated denial machine," say sociologists Riley Dunlap and Aaron McCright. Fossil-fuel companies like Exxon and Peabody Energy — which obviously have a business interest in slowing any attempt to reduce carbon emissions — have combined with traditionally conservative corporate groups like the US Chamber of Commerce and conservative foundations like the Koch brothers' Americans for Prosperity, to raise doubts about the basic validity of what is, essentially, a settled scientific truth. The naysayers seem to be following the playbook written by the tobacco industry in its long, ongoing war against medical findings about the dangers of smoking. For both Big Oil and Big Smoke, that playbook is lethally simple: don't straight-up refute the science, just raise skepticism and insist that the findings are "unsettled" and that "more research" is necessary."

Slashdot Top Deals

Whenever people agree with me, I always think I must be wrong. - Oscar Wilde