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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:I wish I'd saved that link (Score 3, Informative) 433

Portugal’s electricity network operator announced that renewable energy supplied 70 percent of total consumption in the first quarter of this year.


I somehow doubt what you are saying.

If one panel provides all you need during daylight hours you use 2 or 3 or 4 and store it in a battery.

This, and not nuclear it undisputably the way of the future. There is no such thing as a safe nuclear plant. I'm sure the people that had to leave Fukushima prefecture would disagree about the lack of danger to public health. Would you live there now?

Germany will be 100% renewable by 5050. Portugal is already 75%.

We can not afford, on many levels, and do not need: nukes. This has been shown.

Germany is the world's top photovoltaics (PV) installer, with a solar PV capacity of 35.996 gigawatts (GW) at the end of February 2014.[2] The German new solar PV installations increased by about 7.6 GW in 2012, and solar PV provided 18 TWh (billion kilowatt-hours) of electricity in 2011, about 3% of total electricity.[3] Some market analysts expect this could reach 25 percent by 2050.[4] Germany has a goal of producing 35% of electricity from renewable sources by 2020 and 100% by 2050.[5]

"In July 2009, India unveiled a US$19 billion plan to produce 20 GW of solar power by 2020.[2] Under the plan, the use of solar-powered equipment and applications would be made compulsory in all government buildings, as well as hospitals and hotels.[3] On 18 November 2009, it was reported that India was ready to launch its National Solar Mission under the National Action Plan on Climate Change, with plans to generate 1,000 MW of power by 2013.[4] From August 2011 to July 2012, India went from 2.5 MW of grid connected photovoltaics to over 1,000 MW."

" In 2012 China installed 5.0 GW of solar panel capacity. As of 2012, about 8.3 GW of photovoltaics contribute towards power generation in China.[1] Solar water heating is extensively implemented as well.[2]"

And we're not even trying hard. Hopefully soon, well. Anything to avoid those damn dirty dangerous nuclear disaster that endanger countless future generations.

Comment I wish I'd saved that link (Score 0) 433

...that showed the nuclear industry is a major backer to the "global warming" PR hysteria.

China builds two power plants a week. Big Nuke uses this "global warming" as a defensive posture to combat the sale coal plants.

Of course the incorruptible UN suggests we need more nuclear plants - but then they have never actually administered a country.

If you look at countries like Germany and India who are becoming less and less dependant on fossil fuels, it's because of
solar, not nuclear and in fact the trend is to get away from nuclear. They're always way over budget to build, way more expensive to run and in some cases cost too much to decommission so they sit there.

If you want to see just what a boondoogle contemporayr nuclear plants are, Adam Curtis explores this really well:

Not only is the corruption involved massive but the design is fundamentally flawed - they're scaled up sub reactors and they work in subs because you can dump the small core at sea. The guy that designed them objected most strenuously to the idea you could scale them up to a massive size on land and consider them safe: Fukushima proved he was right,

Nuclear: the gift that keeps on giving: for tens of thousands of years. In a world where we still can't get Fukushima under control the idea we should build more is morally reprehensible.

This is the most insane idea yet from the UN all because of a "problem" that's as real as WMD in Iraq. Bad math + bad science = we need more nukes. Dear mother of God...

Comment Never mistake consensus for truth. (Score 2) 869

"97%+ of geologists agreed the continents were stable. It was Settled Science. Hundreds of research papers supported it. Overwhelming consensus. And wrong. And, oddly (not really, if you think about it a moment), it was not a geologist but a meteorologist, Alfred Wegener, who ultimately showed all the mutually agreeing geologists they had it all wrong; the continents move." - Dr. Michael K. Oliver

Comment Warming exists? It is you who are in denial. (Score 1) 869

Check the math. There's been no warming since 98. If you had facts on your side you wouldn't need to use rhetoric like "denier".

This is not the holocaust.

Also, this wasn't "a few days of bad weather" this was two years of awful winters, cold springs and 100 year record cold in some places because of five polar vortexes in a winter that a) began a month early and b) ened late and c) was predicted in 2007 by a method the IPCC claimed had nothing to do with it.


Excuse me but you're on the wrong side of the prediction credibility gap here. And all the rhetoric in the world won't fix that. You may lie, but the numbers do not.

Comment Re:read your own links... Re:Uh-huh (Score 1) 869

Let me try it again slowly.

It's been a 7F degree rise for ages.

Now it's a range of 1.5 to 4.5 (4.5F ~7C) degree change.

Has this gone up, or down? Looks like down to me.

NASA pointed out the prediction was too high and the current prediction has been attenuated somewhat.

If you check, since 1985, smarter people than you and I have been saying "but plants eat CO2, especially when they get warmer" and the alarmists have always said "no". Check for yourself.

Now they're describing the findings as both "incredible" and "unexpected" that this actually happens. These are the "experts" that know ALL about CO2. Suuuuuuuuure they do.

But wait. There's more. Recently Freeman Dyson said:

“I just think they don’t understand the climate,” he said of climatologists. “Their computer models are full of fudge factors.”

A major fudge factor concerns the role of clouds. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on its own is limited. To get to the apocalyptic predictions trumpeted by Al Gore and company, the models have to include assumptions that CO-2 will cause clouds to form in a way that produces more warming.

“The models are extremely oversimplified,” he said. “They don’t represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds.”


"Dyson said his skepticism about those computer models was borne out by recent reports of a study by Ed Hawkins of the University of Reading in Great Britain that showed global temperatures were flat between 2000 and 2010 — even though we humans poured record amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere during that decade."

Recently Lovelock said:

"Now Lovelock is walking back his rhetoric, admitting that he and other prominent global warming advocates were being alarmists. In a new interview with MSNBC he says: '"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that."

Last week the Daily Fail reported the AP had had the IPCC report leaked to it and reported:

"Scientists working on the most authoritative study on climate change were urged to cover up the fact that the world’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years, it is claimed.

A leaked copy of a United Nations report, compiled by hundreds of scientists, shows politicians in Belgium, Germany, Hungary and the United States raised concerns about the final draft.

Published next week, it is expected to address the fact that 1998 was the hottest year on record and world temperatures have not yet exceeded it, which scientists have so far struggled to explain."

"Germany called for the references to the slowdown in warming to be deleted, saying looking at a time span of just 10 or 15 years was ‘misleading’ and they should focus on decades or centuries.

Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for statistics, as it was exceptionally warm and makes the graph look flat - and suggested using 1999 or 2000 instead to give a more upward-pointing curve."

"The United States delegation even weighed in, urging the authors of the report to explain away the lack of warming using the ‘leading hypothesis’ among scientists that the lower warming is down to more heat being absorbed by the ocean – which has got hotter.
The last IPCC ‘assessment report’ was published in 2007 and has been the subject of huge controversy after it had to correct the embarrassing claim that the Himalayas would melt by 2035.
It was then engulfed in the ‘Climategate’ scandal surrounding leaked emails allegedly showing scientists involved in it trying to manipulate their data to make it look more convincing – although several inquiries found no wrongdoing."

Which is because of course, Academic Fraud isn't illegal, but they were found guilty of, as Dyson notes, "fudging numbers".

So, global warming is definitely man made? Except there isn't any warming. So the warming that didn't happen they are 99% sure is man made.

Can you imagine if the same rigorous criteria were applied to the Higgs Boson? "We think we saw sparks. It's the God particle alright!" This is bad math and worse science.

And keep in mind every drop of ink and electron used to waste time on "global warming" is not being used to discussion pollution. Remember Fukushima, that's still out of control? Or the BP spill? Damn if I was responsible for those I'd sure be putting tons of money into "global warming" PR too, probably on a daily basis. But I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

Comment Uh-huh (Score 4, Interesting) 869

It was a 7 degree rise for ages:


Now that's the high end of the "prediction".

In 2010 NASA said this:

"8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise."

And "New NASA model: Doubled CO2 means just 1.64C warming
'Important to get these things right', says scientist"


In 2011 it was "Discovered" trees eat CO2:

Originally found at: http://www.google.com/hostedne...

Forests soak up third of fossil fuel emissions: study
By Marlowe Hood (AFP) – 5 days ago

PARIS — Forests play a larger role in Earth's climate system than previously suspected for both the risks from deforestation and the potential gains from regrowth, a benchmark study released Thursday has shown.

The study, published in Science, provides the most accurate measure so far of the amount of greenhouse gases absorbed from the atmosphere by tropical, temperate and boreal forests, researchers said.

"This is the first complete and global evidence of the overwhelming role of forests in removing anthropogenic carbon dioxide," said co-author Josep Canadell, a scientist at CSIRO, Australia's national climate research centre in Canberra.

"If you were to stop deforestation tomorrow, the world's established and regrowing forests would remove half of fossil fuel emissions," he told AFP, describing the findings as both "incredible" and "unexpected".

Also odd how this guy in 2007 was able to predict this winter's 100-year record breaking cold from things the IPCC have nothing to do with climate:


Do the alarmists have an explanation for these?

Comment Re:Short story: See to what Linus responds (Score 2, Insightful) 641

(Please correct me if I misunderstand the problem, it'e been years since I worked on this stuff)

It seems to be both guys are right. That is, in an ideal world starting with a black sheet of paper then it seems to me Kay is almost certainly correct.

But, this does not mean Torvalds is wrong - breaking legacy systems because of a code change that interprets existing config files is "a bad thing".

So, we fall (ONCE AGAIN) into the trap of living with cruft to support legacy stuff. Just like we have to live with NTSC and pulse dial phones - anybody in Canada with a Bell land-line bill will recognize this charge, every month to "support touch tone":


Never mind 99.99999999999% of phones in Canada are touch tone or that this has been there since the 1960s - how many infrastructural changes require a 70 year amortization period and never mind the telco switches have to go out of their way to support pulse (rotary) dial since touch tone in the international norm for landline and cell phones yet we have to pay extra so support the current practice everyone uses? Huh?

That's what supporting legacy cruft buys you.

So, while I see both guys as being right, I also see both guys as being wrong: I don't think Kay should have made this change quietly and I don't think Torvalds should have fired his sorry ass.

If it were me, I'd have done this.

1) Change the spec so "debug" isn't allowed any more. Use Kay's new and improved syntax.
2) Rather than make "debug" does what it does now, or just stop working, have it instead spit out a message that says: "debug" has changed. Don't use it here any more it probably doesn't do what you think. If you know what you're doing and want to proceed anyway, use "debug.legacy" instead and it will give you so much stuff it'll probably hang your system and good luck, see for the new syntax or how to use it properly, and further explanation.

But that's just me.

As always communication might have helped and Kay and Torvalds should have spoken, back-channel, to find a way to elegantly resolve this instead of the usual public dick-waving that does no good and just makes everyone look arrogant and childish. FOSS is full of people with bizarre personalities, but we gotta do better, they're bizarre, not retarded.

Slashdot Top Deals

Practical people would be more practical if they would take a little more time for dreaming. -- J. P. McEvoy