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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Fear, uncertainty, and doubt (Score 1) 263

That is not in any way an ad hominem. It is perfectly valid to prove that your opponent's argument is flawed by demonstrating that it is inconsistent.

Sockatume has actually cleverly demonstrated that his opponent's argument leads to two equally undesireable outcomes, either a wide range of science is not, in fact, science despite their official status as science which most likely indicates that Rockoon is not using the standard definition of science, or Rockoon is subjectively applying a different definition of science that he would normally use, and thus Rockoon's argument is simply invalid.

Now, it appears that you agree with either an invalid definition of science, or an invalid argument, I suggest you do some reading and figure out where you went wrong.

Comment Re:Testing the idea (Score 3, Informative) 263

As for your comment about digital computers modeling the theories of the climate scientists, THAT EXPERIMENT HAS BEEN TRIED. REPEATEDLY. Every single climate model out there, when started with available historical data and allowed to run, FAILS to predict today's climate. A model which provably does not match reality is, by definition, an invalid model, no matter how cheap or how fancy a computer you ran it on.

Unfortunately, that's just not true.

Comment Re:How long until we move out from the sun? (Score 1) 263

While I agree that Climate change isn't "some moral problem with the plague of humanity destroying Gaia", there are several thing you should be aware of:

1. The Sun's energy output has increased since the Creataceous. The same level of CO2 would produce a warmer world now than it did then.

2. The Permian-Triassic extinction event was at least partially (possibly wholely) attributable to climate change. It killed between 90% and 96% of all species living on the planet at that time and it took over 4 million years for the world's ecosystems to recover.

3. Climate change could pose a very large problem for humanity if we allow it to. At somewhere between +4 to +6 degrees C over the 20th century baseline we will start seeing global crop failures of most (possibly all) of humanity's staple crops.

It's nothing to panic over, but it is important to know and understand the risks. If we allow it to be, Climate change could be much more than a minor inconvenience.

Comment Re:Sounds reasonable, but... (Score 1) 355

It's fairly simple, carbon dioxide is both an induced feedback and feedback inducer. Normally the oceans warm and release CO2 into the atmosphere due to Milankovitch cycles, so CO2 lags the initial warming impulse. However, this time we're injecting CO2 directly into the atmosphere and skipping the normal feedback inducing mechanism, which, I guess, makes us the new inducer of rising CO2 levels.

Comment Re:Predictions? (Score 1) 355

Of course, if there's a random component to the model to represent data that we don't know or understand the cause of (for example, why some years are El Nino and some years are La Nina) then they might run the simulation many times so that they can establish the range of possible results with a known confidence level.

You seem to be labouring under a particularly powerful Dunning-Kruger effect because you don't seem to understand just how non-sensical this objection is.

Comment Re:Infant Mortality Rates (Score 1) 1063

I would assume that usually it's overlooked because the differences are failry insignificant (according to the U.S. Congress's own investigation into the issue). Out of the countries the U.S. Congress looked at (most of which were included in this report), only 6 out 20 had any difference in how they recorded live births and even in those 6 countries the number of "excluded" births was insignificant. For instance, Norway doesn't count any live "births" where the fetus is less than 12 weeks old. If you understand anything about pregnancy, you understand that live births under those conditions are extremely rare.

Comment Re:All They EVER Cared About... (Score 1) 212

Well, it might give the countries who produce the most emissions an incentive to tax emissions, if they are eventually required to pay based on their level of emissions. And, of course, taxing emissions would pass the incentive on to privately owned corporation and individuals. So it could eventually help reduce emissions.

On the other hand, giving money to the people who are suffering the consequences could help them mitigate or repair the damage. For example, the money might be put to use building a dyke to protect a city that is currently at sea level.

Comment Re:If they can still print the email (Score 1) 212

The point that you don't understand is that the "food aid" is actually just a new name for farm subsidies. The government buys food from American farmers and gives it away for free in the target country. If it weren't "food aid" it would be called "flooding the market" and "illegal subsidies". However, it still has the effect of undermining local food production and increasing the need the more "food aid".

It's actually much more effective to use the money to buy local food first and then import any shortfalls, that encourages local food production and reduces dependence on food aid. However, many of the people involved aren't looking at what's best for the target nation, they've got local farmers who need government handouts.

Comment Re:already given... (Score 1) 212

Actually, you have that reversed: even more people would be alive today without the fossil fueled economies. You seem to have forgotten that birth rates are inversely related to prosperity. Because of prosperity in the West created by fossil fuel exploitation untold millions of lives were never started.

Slashdot Top Deals

The trouble with opportunity is that it always comes disguised as hard work. -- Herbert V. Prochnow