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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment -1 I disagree with you (Score 1) 618

Climate science is entirely falsifiable - it just hasn't been falsified despite all the fortunes spent on trying to do so. Nobody has yet managed to do a real experiment that showed CO2 NOT acting as a greenhouse gas (that would falsify it). Nobody has yet found a single shred of evidence that disproves the theory - while there are thousands of independent sources of evidence that all support it, and nobody has yet come up with a better explanation for the observations than that offered by climate change theory.
Any of these things would:
1) Falsify the theory
2) Win you a nobel prize
3) Guarantee you tenure and an endless supply of grant money for the rest of your life at any academic institution of your choosing.

Basically EVERY incentive is to disprove climate change.

The failure of those trying to actually falsify something does not imply it is not falsifiable. It implies the theory is almost certainly correct.

At this stage, the most single most tested scientific theory in the history of science is so unlikely to be false - that we will almost certainly never see it replaced, modified and gradually improved - yes, replaced probably not. At least not for the next several centuries. Because at this point the only thing that could do so is an observation that actually does not fit the theory. It took 500 years for technology to give us a measuring device that could pick up the things that didn't quite follow Newton, and I'd say it will take about twice that long before something fundamentally alters climate science.

If you set the bar at CO2 causing warming, humans raising CO2 levels and things getting warmer, you are right about those being well established. We aren't gonna upset or falsify that anytime soon.

News flash, policy and behaviour changes aren't really driven by any of those points. What's the severity of the future we face is the question. On that we have two examples below:
1.The IPCC worst case scenario, with 95% confidence levels cited sea level rise relative to today of no more than 3ft by 2100
2.Adam Fenech, a Nobel Prize-winning climate scientist and the director of the Climate Research Lab at the University of Prince Edward Island:"A lot of the most recent science is telling us it could rise as much as three metres during that time," says Fenech. "Probably in about 50 years, with a three-metre increase, we'd probably lose about half the island under water completely."

So we have a Nobel winning committee declaring no more than 3 feet in 100 years, and a Nodel winning research director predicting 3 metres in 50 years. One of these are gonna be falsified, and the scope of difference in their predictions makes an outrageous difference to what our responses should be.

downvoted as over rated, with zero votes with a post that consists virtually nothing more than 2 statements of fact backed with a link to an external quote of a highly credentialed scientist. Thanks for the reminder why I so rarely bother posting anything here anymore.

Comment 9ft by 2060 (Score 1) 618

Here's Adam Fenech, a Nobel Prize-winning climate scientist and the director of the Climate Research Lab at the University of Prince Edward Island:"A lot of the most recent science is telling us it could rise as much as three metres during that time," says Fenech. "Probably in about 50 years, with a three-metre increase, we'd probably lose about half the island under water completely."

That's a claim being made TODAY, by a well credentialed leader of a climate research lab. I'm thinking that's not gonna pan out, the IPCC vehemently agrees.

The point is that a lot of the gloom and doom forecasts being used to push policy changes are CONTRARY to the IPCC projections, and are still coming from 'scientists'. Guys like Hansen aren't much better and get a lot of press.

Comment Hiding the decline (Score 4, Informative) 618

XKCD produced this graph http://xkcd.com/1732/ to shows how temperature has changed over the last 22,000 years

xkcd is great, but the data he referenced follows the infamous "hide the decline" trick. The 'trick' is nothing more than using the instrumental temperature record to fill in gaps or quality in data. For the proxy records cited going back 20k years, the accuracy and precision over the last 100 is poor and the authors themselves state as much. Thus, to complete the data set through to today the instrumental record is included from 1900 onwards.

Nothing really wrong with that. The only caveat is in how you interpret the graph. If you look at the graph and observe that there is an unprecedented trend set off at 1900, the beginning of the industrial era you have to be careful. The unprecedented trend ALSO coincides with a change in methodology and data source in the graph. Ruling out how sensitive the proxy data is to short term spikes like today is vitally important to interpreting that part of the graph well, and we're still working that.

Comment Re:Y'know... Actually... (Score 1) 618

That rather depends on what temperature readings you choose to use in the last 100 years ;-). But, everyone loves a graph that goes up at the end, whatever that might happen to mean.

Is there a data set for global temperatures for the last 100 years that doesn't show a sharp rise at the end? Is there one that would have continued the rather prosaic rate of change displayed in the rest of the XKCD comic?

You are missing the point. The data trend of the last 100 years on the graph coincides not just with the industrial age, it coincides with the data source for the graph changing too. The proxy data reconstruction ends at 1900, and from 1900 on the data source changes to the instrumental record.

There's plenty of reason to argue it's a reasonable step to take, but you can't exactly say it's unfair to point out that the change in data source might also play a role in the sharp delta starting at that exact point in the graph.

Comment Contradictory predictions will be falsified (Score 0) 618

Climate science is entirely falsifiable - it just hasn't been falsified despite all the fortunes spent on trying to do so. Nobody has yet managed to do a real experiment that showed CO2 NOT acting as a greenhouse gas (that would falsify it). Nobody has yet found a single shred of evidence that disproves the theory - while there are thousands of independent sources of evidence that all support it, and nobody has yet come up with a better explanation for the observations than that offered by climate change theory.
Any of these things would:
1) Falsify the theory
2) Win you a nobel prize
3) Guarantee you tenure and an endless supply of grant money for the rest of your life at any academic institution of your choosing.

Basically EVERY incentive is to disprove climate change.

The failure of those trying to actually falsify something does not imply it is not falsifiable. It implies the theory is almost certainly correct.

At this stage, the most single most tested scientific theory in the history of science is so unlikely to be false - that we will almost certainly never see it replaced, modified and gradually improved - yes, replaced probably not. At least not for the next several centuries. Because at this point the only thing that could do so is an observation that actually does not fit the theory. It took 500 years for technology to give us a measuring device that could pick up the things that didn't quite follow Newton, and I'd say it will take about twice that long before something fundamentally alters climate science.

If you set the bar at CO2 causing warming, humans raising CO2 levels and things getting warmer, you are right about those being well established. We aren't gonna upset or falsify that anytime soon.

News flash, policy and behaviour changes aren't really driven by any of those points. What's the severity of the future we face is the question. On that we have two examples below:
1.The IPCC worst case scenario, with 95% confidence levels cited sea level rise relative to today of no more than 3ft by 2100
2.Adam Fenech, a Nobel Prize-winning climate scientist and the director of the Climate Research Lab at the University of Prince Edward Island:"A lot of the most recent science is telling us it could rise as much as three metres during that time," says Fenech. "Probably in about 50 years, with a three-metre increase, we'd probably lose about half the island under water completely."

So we have a Nobel winning committee declaring no more than 3 feet in 100 years, and a Nodel winning research director predicting 3 metres in 50 years. One of these are gonna be falsified, and the scope of difference in their predictions makes an outrageous difference to what our responses should be.

Comment Re:Stupid bet... (Score 0) 303

Climate, while much simpler than weather, is still rather more complicated than school grades.
So 100% accurate ? No. But not 50% either - more in the 95%+ range. That's also not an entirely true assessment because you're measuring it the wrong way. Climate models are written by experts who are aware they can't factor in everything, and that some things are still being worked on, so they don't give you an exact temperature - they give you a range within which the outcome is likely to lie and, if you take the average over the period predicted for, they overwhelmingly do lie in those averages.

The one major discrepency is IPCC reports, there are several decades where the average warming was significantly higher than IPCC models predicted. The reason for this is that the IPCC is particularly conservative in their estimates, fear of being called alarmists have led to the IPCC only publishing the bottom end of the likely range and also excluding anything they don't have extremely high confidence in (far higher than any other science would need for a minor variable in a big set with limited influence) - as a result they tend to to somewhat under-predict warming.

The lesson from that is that IPCC reports should be read as an absolute best-case scenario, reading the papers they are based on - the upper limit worst-case scenarios should be considered as well and we can generally expect reality to lie somewhere in the middle between those.,

It's posts like yours that turn people into skeptics.

1. You want to claim that climate models as a whole are 95% accurate.
2. You want to claim there are several decades where warming exceeds the IPCC prediction because they are so conservative and are clearly biased to a best-case scenario.

1. On what basis can you claim 95% accuracy for models, because it surely isn't in a predictive sense. Climate models have NOT managed to predict future climate with 95% accuracy. More accurately, if I said temperature averages for the next 30 years will be similar to this year +/- 0.5c, I'd have great accuracy, but I really haven't predicted a bloody thing either, now have I? The real benchmark used for climate modelling is still exclusively hindcasts, which means nobody is successfully publishing models that fail to hindcast accurately, which proves exactly nothing about the accuracy of the modelling. What is more, the basic physics are pretty well understood, the global energy imbalance at the edge of the atmosphere is the problem that the greenhouse effect is driving. Climate models regrettably still require manual fine tuning to poorly understood variables like clouds to prevent unrealistic runaway energy imbalances. So I don't think your characterisation of climate models in anyway reflects reality.

2. The first IPCC report is 26 years old, would you care to point out which decades it grossly underestimated? There are really only 2 full decades there to pick from so I'm interested to hear how you managed to get that plural usage of decades in. Also, if you want to look at the older IPCC reports for comparisons, the real world temperatures since the Third assessment in 2001 have trended right near the bottom end of the error bars of the most optimistic IPCC projections right up until a year ago.

Seriously, we have overwhelming evidence that the planet is warming and that our CO2 emissions are contributing meaningfully to that. You don't need to make up stupid exaggerations of the known science to try and make it sound scarier than it is. That's not science. That's not defending science. It's actively undermining and misrepresenting science. False statements like yours lead people to question and doubt everything else they hear when they find out your claims were bunk.

Comment Re:Drinking Round up causes cancer (Score 1) 378

Until recently, the fight over Roundup has mostly focused on its active ingredient, glyphosate. But mounting evidence, including one study published in February, shows it’s not only glyphosate that’s dangerous, but also chemicals listed as “inert ingredients” in some formulations of Roundup and other glyphosate-based weed killers. Though they have been in herbicides — and our environment — for decades, these chemicals have evaded scientific scrutiny and regulation in large part because the companies that make and use them have concealed their identity as trade secrets.

Source: "New Evidence About the Dangers of Monsanto’s Roundup" https://theintercept.com/2016/...

Remember the infamous interview where the Monsanto lobbyist, Patrick Moore, claimed that Roundup was safe to drink but then refused to actually drink any? May be he knew about this. And no your argument about coal doesn't hold water here. There's really no point to claiming that something's safe because other things are more dangerous. In addition, Roundup is far more dangerous than radioactivity from coal. Then the point about Roundup users tasting it? You don't think that they may inhale it while spraying it from backpacks, tractors, and mobile spray tanks, do you?

Let's start with you suggesting an alternative. Of all the chemicals farmers use to control weeds on their farms, round-up is far and away the safest. If you are truly concerned for the farmers out there applying it, what is their alternative? They either don't spray anything to control weeds, or they use MORE dangerous chemicals than round-up.

Let's also have some perspective on 'danger' here. I'm having trouble pulling up the human LD50 for round-up. That's likely because they lack test cases of anybody actually dying that way to reference. Regardless, let's list the ld50 for round up and some other substances, shall we?
LD50 in rats:
Aspirin 200mg/kg
Vitamin A 2000mg/kg
Table Salt 3000mg/kg
Round-up 5000mg/kg
Alcohol 7060mg/kg
Sugar 30,000mg/kg

So when sampling Aspirin, Salt,Vitamin A, Alcohol, Sugar and Round-up, only TWO of those substances are less toxic than round-up. Maybe a little less fear and uncertainty is warranted. Particularly given that nobody is advocating incorporating glyphosate into our diets. We are talking about glyphosate being used to control weeds in crops, and in such a way that the amount that ever traces it's way off the farm is minuscule.

Taking a case of 'extreme' glyophsate concentrations from the first alarmist source I could find cited 9mg/kg of glyphosate in Norwegian Soy GE crops. Takign the average daily food intake for people at 2kg and assuming we force feed a subject exclusively this 'extreme' contaminated soy bean, we get a daily intake of 18mg of glyphosate. Now, that's an utterly extreme case, and not realistic, but let's examine that worst of worst cases closer. The average human weighs in at 80kg and it's inexact, but the best we've got to say the LD50 is like rats at 5000mg/kg, meaning that a lethal dose for our average subject is 400,000mg. Working out the math our extremely contaminated GE soybeans are inflicting 0.000045% of a lethal dose.

Let's give more reference, the average daily salt intake for our regular joe we just victimized is 3400mg. Again weighing in at 80kg and with a LD50 for salt at 3000mg/kg we have a lethal dose of salt weighing 240,000mg. Doing the math again, our victim regularly consumes 0.014% of a lethal dose of salt daily all by themselves.

The difference between medicine and poison is dosage, and in the case of gylphosate our food is nowhere near the dangerous stage all the fear mongers want to promote.

Comment Re:Syrian refugees are NOT about climate (Score 1) 217

Fuck off, there is always a reason for population movements.

And yet somehow the correlation between massive crop failure due to drought leading to starvation somehow correlates strongly to dictatorships.

Like it did for Stalin.
Like it did for Mao.
Like it did for Kim.

Maybe the causation goes the other way and having a dictator crushing all independence that leads to a failed ability to properly plan and run agriculture and be prepared for droughts too. You know, on account of most of the time droughts don't impact the dictator anymore than losing some peasants, and if the peasants get unruly, losing some soldiers that are needed to kill of the unruly peasants.

Comment Syrian refugees are NOT about climate (Score 1, Troll) 217

Actually the Syria situation was initiated by an unprecedented multi-year drought. This depopulated hundreds of rural villages, which destabilized the regime. The Assads have been ruthlessly crushing Islamist uprisings for generations, but this time the cities were flooded with hungry, angry, unemployed young men. The spark for ISIS was always there, but climate refugees gave it the fuel it needed to become unquenchable.

No.

The protests in Syria, the rebellion, the rise of ISIS and everything else facing the Syrian people had NOTHING to do with 'climate'.

Let's start off with the reason for people to be angry and desperate, and that is squarely the brutal repression of the Assad family dictatorship.

Next up, what went wrong with the standard operating procedure of the Assad family of simply killing everyone involved with and related to the protests? For starters, Assad initially met the peaceful protesters with half-measures and merely used snipers to kill off some of the protesters. It would seem he estimated that would drive them off and be the end of it. He miscalculated.

Now, normally that was a mistake he could've corrected by coming in late and still killing all the protesters and their friends and relatives. The trouble for him was that Saddam no longer ruled Iraq and the Iraq/Syria border was now freely navigable instead of a quick trip from one concentration camp to another. Additionally, let's not forget the enormous wealth of resources Saudi Arabia was spending on beefing up the insurgency in Syria because they don't much like Iran's allies. With Saudi funded insurgents pouring in from the Iraq border Assad missed his window to just kill everyone and lost control of things.

Granted, the weather was a bit dry too. I think it is on the side of malicious though to twist every tragedy to boost your own personal agenda. So if you don't mind, stop it.

Stop using thousands of dead Syrians as props to promote the climate alarmism you desire.
Stop abdicating the collective guilt of the monsters in Assad's regime and the ISIS insurgents.

Please just stop.

Comment Voter selection (Score 1) 858

The only solution to this micro-aggression by white cis-males is clearly to demand that media reviews have a stricter voter selection criteria. If a movie wasn't made for your gender, race, religion or orientation you have no business reviewing it.

You know, when you follow the article's logic out fully, it sounds kinda insane...

Comment Re:Strong enough for a man, made for a woman (Score 4, Insightful) 858

You know, the entire Gamergate movement was predicated on the notion that feminists had no business reviewing games that were geared towards men. "Let them make their own games" was the rallying cry.

The whole gamergate thing was predicated on an effort to stop the production of 'male oriented' games. Nobody really cares if reviews are poorly done, that's not exactly gonna be a new thing for entertainment media. The special affront for gamergate was nothing about reviews as you and the article claim, but instead
about SJW's trying to dictate what kind of games should be made.

You just have to look at the outpouring of rage from whiny-ass MRA manbabies regarding the re-boot of Ghostbusters with an all-female cast to see how this mechanism plays out. If it's targeted at men, then men believe they should be the ones to review. If it's targeted at women, then men believe they should be the ones the review. And god forbid a woman should offer an opinion because, "IT'S NOT MEANT FOR YOU". Hell, these embarrassing needledicks have been overwhelming the reviews of Ghostbuster and it hasn't even come out yet.

Fuck these losers. If they got out and met a few human girls in person, they might not be so skeevy that they have time to carpet bomb any show or movie that has women in it. Remember the outrage over the latest Star Wars? How the MRAs were going to boycott? They degrade all of masculinity with their incessant whining.

Sob, sob, other people have different opinions of games and movies than I do and they are expressing those opinions. Stop caring about what other people think and just watch what you enjoy, problem solved. You don't need to go enforcing things on others to get over this first world problem.

Comment Re:More Lies (Score 1) 378

I am not going to read through 150 cases because _you_ are lazy and want to claim a single generalization fits for all 150 cases. You know of one case, and are so content in your delusion that you refuse to do the work. Sucks to be you.

Wrong, I've gone through dozens of them, and never found any that match the claims made by clowns like you. If you wanna convince me otherwise provide one piece of evidence. You guys never have to I'm getting more confident there isn't any and I've got an accurate assessment of this,

Comment More Lies (Score 1) 378

Thanks for the attention, I hope your masters pay you well for being a liar.

For the innocent bystander, this is more propaganda. Law suits about "stealing seed" relate to what farmers call "bleed" where plants grow on areas of land which are not farmed and not maintained. At least one of those cases was brought about by the farmer suing Monsanto because their seed started creeping into their land, and Monsanto successfully sued them for patent infringement in retaliation.

There is a very well known revolving door between the highest Federal offices and Big Business, Agriculture is a part of this cronyism.

When businesses behave altruistically they can be treated as such, and I would defend them and their altruism. They don't, so I don't.

Give me a single solitary example and I'll admit I'm wrong.

Percy Schmeiser is the most commonly cited example. He admitted in court he took his own seeded Canola that bordered his neighbours's Monsanto round-up ready crop. He then sprayed his own seed crop with round up, and then took the few surviving plants and used this to grow his own Monsanto seed. That's not 'bleed' over, it's a concerted effort to acquire Monsanto's seed.

Comment Drinking Round up causes cancer (Score 1) 378

BTW, here's an example of what often happens when someone does actually publish evidence against Monsanto's interests: http://www.nature.com/news/wid...

You are seeing objections to the claims of round up causing cancer because it's false. The studies showing cancer in mice and rats was when exposing them round up used high doses. In practice, that means that eating round-up is probably carcinogenic, as reported. The trick is, in ag practice, people don't taste test chemical before putting them in a sprayer. After spraying round-up on a crop, it breaks down within days. By the time any crop hits the market, it's nearly impossible to find any trace of it, and that's looking at ppb. The cancer in rats quantity was many, many times higher. For reference, we might wanna measure radioactive isotopes on produce near coal plants too, it's probably at equally worrying levels as round up. That's proper scope of the 'problem'.

Comment Monstanto suits aren't that bad (Score 1) 378

Such a small fragment of truth you should have at least tried to verity. From a quick Google search the number is more than 140 lawsuits filed by one company (Monsanto) against farmers. This does not include any of the other companies performing genetic modification or licensed by Monsanto to use their seeds and their lawsuits.

The fragment of truth is that one lawsuit made it to the Supreme Court who upheld Monsanto's rights to sue.

The second tiny fragment of truth is that one patent expired. There are hundreds of thousands of seeds on patent.

All that said, when Monsanto goes after a specific farmer even if the patent is expired the claim generally puts farmers out of business.

The problem is not GMO as much as shit business practices who ensure that consumers get fucked because competition does not exist. A pox on all the people modding down anything that can possibly be perceived as anti-GMO.

Have you looked at the suits? The only guys Monsanto has brought cases against are those that were using Monsanto seeds without buying them from Monsanto. The very simple problem farmers face is choosing to buy seeds from Monsanto and using Monsanto seeds, or to not use Monsanto seeds. In both those cases, Monsanto is never gonna darken their door with any legal action. The only time Monsanto comes after farmers is when they attempt to use Monstanto seed without buying it from Monsanto.

You're free to disagree with Monstanto's right to do that if you wish, but don't misrepresent the situation by projecting your own biases, Farmers are making their own choices and if they aren't make the choice you think is the right one it's really none of your business.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Don't tell me I'm burning the candle at both ends -- tell me where to get more wax!!"

Working...