Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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

Comment Playing the devil's advocate (Score 4, Interesting) 76

As a western liberal I of course object censorship in all of its forms, but at the same time I understand the mindset that the Chinese establishment has: they cannot prevent the inevitable spread of communication technology, so more and more Chinese people are becoming networked. This means that the potential for massive protests of millions of people over any number of subjects ranging from food prices to air quality to an outrage over public transit prices can occur more and more easily as these ideas are free to spread.

Take something like the 2013 Turkey protests as an example. The estimates of how many people were on streets ranger from 3,5 to 7,5 million people. As I was in a relationship with a Turkish woman at the time, I know the effect social media had. People were sharing the locations data with each other; locations of other protesters, riot cops, locations of where to get gas masks/first aid, and in general coordinating the movement of the masses to try and evade the rather over the top fascist measures that the government pretty much immediately chose to resort to. Now 3,5 million people is a lot, but percentage-wise it's less than 5 % of the total population. China has approximately 721 million online users and growing. Even if only 0,5 % of that population gets together and starts organizing protests movements, we're talking about over 3 and a half million people, around the same scale as the protests in Turkey.

From the perspective of the Chinese government the situation is tricky: lowering censorship would be a good PR move and make people happier, but it has the potential to trigger situations in which Tianmen square will look like a peaceful and orderly event. The path of least resistance is thus to allow people to yell about their dissatisfaction online, but just make sure the information never reaches a critical mass of people to trigger major social instability and havoc. Put another way: giving total freedom of communication to the Chinese people has the possibility of sending the country into major internal turmoil, possibly even civil war, because the internet can be used - both by ethical and unethical instances - to leverage the power of the mobs at much faster speeds than any other communication technology up until this point.

From this perspective I understand why they're doing it, even though I do not condone it.

Comment Re:another climate hoax article yawn (Score 1) 278

It's a fact hand crafted goods are not only popular but gaining while mass produced automated bullshit burns

It's a fact that people don't give a sit whether or not their farming is automated because it already is (to a large extent) and this won't change it (from the consumer's perspective) one bit except make production more efficient and has drive the cost of food down, which is a good thing, so this whole 'automation makes everything bad' -whine is pretty ridiculous.

We wouldn't have anywhere near the amount of goods to go around without mass production, because handcrafting complex items is time consuming, expensive, and often very, very inefficient. The food production on a global level relies already on automation and machinery to be able to feed the billions of us. If we went your way and started going backwards towards more manual labor, we'd lower the food output and increase starvation. Like honestly, how fucking stupid are you? Do you not understand how industrial farming works and how little this differs from it except being more efficient?

This was just another BS climate change article

The article didn't even mention climate change, but was merely talking about the improvements in efficiency we can get by automating farming. Obviously in the long term this probably has a beneficial effect for the climate as well, but that was in no way the point made in the article, which you'd know if you were able to do basic reading comprehension.

It takes a gigantic moron to look at technological improvements which help us produce more food for people and call it bullshit.

Comment Re:another climate hoax article yawn (Score 1) 278

Automation takes the craftsmanship out of things

What? We're talking about farming here. Farmwork is already heavily mechanized. Even organic farmers use modern equipment, computers, tractors and so on to help thme do the work and quite many of the fruits and vegetables people eat already are picked up by machines. The only change is that farmer himself will no longer have to be sitting on top of the tractor but instead can monitor the progress of the harvest from his computer. How is that 'taking the craftmanship out of things'??? I don't care one iota if the potato I buy has been picked by a a tractor driven by a guy or one driving itself, as long as it tastes alright.

I'm sure the people living in some sandy shit hole would appreciate automated anything if it meant the difference between starvation and survival

I'm sure people living anywhere in the world appreciate automated anything if it means the difference between paying more and paying less for that same thing. That's why industrial scale automated production is so popular: start making 'hand-crafted' electronics for example and they're going to be so expensive that nearly no-one could buy them.

Long story short this is just another bullshit leftist climate change article

Long story short you just went full retard. Never go full retard.

Comment Only one way forward (Score 4, Informative) 249

To replace coal, we're building more nuclear. There's one new reactor being built (actually the biggest in the world at 1700 MW, although the project has been seriously delayed and is unfortunately massively over budget/schedule due to problems with the French contractor (Areva) and one additional reactor being planned for 2024. If both of these are successfully completed, it will more than double our nuclear capabilities and increase our energy production capabilities by almost 3000 MW. and should be more than enough to make up for the gap left by abandoning coal.

I'm a fan of nuclear, especially since we're also building the first ever deep geological repository to handle the waste storage. It's just a shame that the project has turned out to be such a screw.up (granted it is partially because the reacrtor type - European Pressurized Reactor - is new and has never been built before), and I'm hoping the authorities here learn something important from this: bidding these types of projects based solely on the price-tag will lead to issues. I do believe though that Areva will end up paying the fees once the case is settled, though whether or not it will actually have the money to do so (it's over 5 billion) is another matter.

Regardless of the difficulties and the cost, nuclear is really the only way forward for us, because we're pretty much tapped out on Hydro and solar doesn't have much use here at commercial scales because for half the year the sun is pretty much gone. So if we want to be rational and dump both coal and the dependency on Russian import gas, going nuclear with modern is the only viable option at this point.

Germany has gone the opposite direction and is shutting down nuclear power plants which is actually leading to an increase in the use of fossil fuels. Here's a TED talk about why the senseless opposition to nuclear is actually harming the environment because of that.

Comment Re:This is a good thing (Score 1) 395

You are of an opinion that every job will be automated

Yes, in the long term, because as long as we keep improving the information processing of our technology, eventually we're going to reach a point wherein the machines are as intelligent as humans at which point they can essentially take over all jobs and do them faster and better than humans.

the prices for people fall and they are again competitive against automation.

This is flatout wrong. I tried to explain to you but I'll try again. If you look at the example of automated invoicing for example, a machine automates away the need for 15 extra people. The automated systems are capable of doing so much work so muuch more efficiently that it's not possible for human workers to compete with these systems. Automated systems are low cost already and they're vastly more skilled/efficient than even an experienced human employee, so trying to match the automated systems in cost/benefit is not feasible even in the relatively short term really, let alone the long term.

You have an untenable goal: to provide hundreds of millions of jobless individuals with a quality of life that their politicians promised them at the expense of the oppressed individuals and companies and you believe that these individuals and companies will not leave and go to markets that are much less oppressed?

The goal is not untenable. Developed economies already provide this standard of living for people. As production gets more efficient due to humans being taken out of the production loop the economies become more efficient so its not like production goes down. The economies can still produce everything they produce now and more, they just dont need anywhere close the amount of humans in the production. So should the standard of living in western economies collapse just because even though we still have equal production capabilities and material wealth, we no longer need to burden human workers?

This will eventually be the case for the whole world, as the standard of living rises even in the developing world and automating jobs becomes cheaper and cheaper as these systems become more commonplace. Eventually automated systems will be cheaper than even the quasi-slave labor in countries like China, and in fact automation of production facilities in China is already underway in many places because they're able to do the math and see that even though the initial investment can be huge, the long term benefit for the companies is already visible even compared to labor priced at 3 dollars a day.

If the companies leave and produce everything elsewhere either by outsourcing or automation, they will kill off the market they want to sell to. They need people and companies to buy their product, but without income (which people will not be able to get because, as explained above, in the long term human labor CANNOT compete with automation) these people cannot buy products and thus the consumer companies especially will lose their income from these markets and essentially destroy themselves,

So in the long term either the taxes are raised to fund something like UBI make sure people can have a money to acquire goods from the companies and keep the profit motive alive, or the taxes are not raised and the majority of the companies will collapse as there'll be no paying customers to create any demand for the goods and services they provide.

Who do you think can provide a cheaper service, the local developers or outsourced ones (given approximately the same quality)

And when the point arrives that automated systems themselves can do most or all of the development (which is not that far off, as you should know if you're following what's happening) the outsourcing will become inefficient even compared to african dirt-poor development.

There is no way around this: human labor/outsourcing will be able to compete with some of the automated systems for a couple decades still, but going further we will, barring a worldwide catastrophe, reach a point where it just makes more sense for companies globally to perform manufacturing - even complex manufacturing and services like programming - with machines,

My point is that oppression doesn't work in the long run but countries like yours

And my point is that we're by all estimates heade to a future where most if not all jobs will be done by machines at a rate and price which makes employing humans unnecessary. So the production capabilities globally will go up as machines catch up and surpass humans in efficiency and power, and thus we cannot reasonably assume that the current model of full-time employment is feasible as a source of a decent standard of living for most individuals.

we will not see eye to eye but I am pretty sure about the final outcome.

You can be sure all you want, the problem is you're moving from incorrect premises and thus arriving at incorrect conclusions. Human labor will lose the competition to automation at a global level within this century, at which point we either develop new systems to ensure a decent standard of living for the (vast majority) of people who will not have work, or we plunge billions into poverty and cause a massive economic collapse as companies lose their customer-base, there's no other way around this, as the idea that in 2070 people will still be sitting in cubicles - here, in the US, or in Ukraine - doing data entry or writing code is simply not realistic seeing how far we are already - with around 40-50 % jobs being possibly automated in just the coming 2 decades, and we're just getting started,

Comment Re:This is a good thing (Score 1) 395

They owe nothing to Finland

That's your opinion, not theirs, and certainly not mine. As someone currently running a tech-startup myslef I see things very differently, but this is a minor point in this discussion so I'll leave that be and move on to the more important matter, which is that you are still dodging the issue.

labour and capital are always in competition, government oppression makes labour artificially more expensive, thus providing more incentives for automation that exist otherwise.

This is a total non-sequitur. In the mid-to-long term automation will surpass human workers with or without government 'oppression' (still the wrong word but whatever) because machines are more cost-effective at these jobs. It's simply not possible for a human worker to do for example invoicing or bookkeeping or any repetitive and simple jobs for faster and as well or better than a machine that can handle thousands of transactions in seconds and do so with considerably lower margins of error than a human being.

Even if I grant you to be correct for the sake of argument that government involvement is making this process faster, the overall advancements of technology which are happening and will keep happening mean that jobs requiring only little or no education will eventually be made obsolete by machines, as the technological advancements cannot be stopped barring a major planetary catastrophe.

Simply put, humans are incapable at competing effectively with machines when it comes to information processing, which means we're not in the same market as the machines from the point of view of the corporations. Machines and humans are not equal or equally effective as workers, which is why your supply and demand analogy fails and fails massively.

Again, I know from personal experience having been a part of the process that what now takes around 20 people to run invoice will soon be ran with machines and 3-5 people. This is cheaper and more effective. So please, stop deluding yourself into thinking that slow, error-prone humans are capable of competing with something that does the exactly same job faster, tirelessly and with a lower rate of error. The cost/benefit ratio of an automated system, even if the 20 people were paid HALF of what they used to be paid would still vastly be better. There is no price point at which the labor of these individuals is competitive with a system that has an entirely predictable output rate and a fixed - and relatively low (compared to operating profit) . cost. Machines work 24/7, don't take sick leave, don't complain etc. Once a system like that is set up and working (and like I said, these are not that expensive these days) there's no reason for any company to hire those 20 people at even a dollar per hour wage because the machine is simply a better investment value-wise.

There is no way for human individuals to compete with machines because of this in the long term.

As for education, firstly: bullshit. Education per student is cheaper in western countries where it is provided as public service instead of as a for-profit commodity. It's the combination of private, for-profit universities and private but government backed loans that's making it so ridiculously expensive in the US. When education is a necessity to be able to enter the labor market, it makes no sense to force people into debt just so they can even apply for a job.

But more importantly I was asking what do you imagine the situation to be in your 'ideal' future when, even if one takes debt, there's absolutely no guarantee that you'll get employed because a larger amount of people will be competing for a smaller amount of jobs, meaning the 'investment' one makes into privately acquired education is incredibly risk and has even more of a chance of ruining your life entirely if you don't get a job but are left with the debt and no means to pay it.

So really, what are the options for somebody born into a non-wealthy family in your 'ideal' society? Attempt to take a loan to get educated? If you don't get a loan because the bank figures you're not worth it (ie. too stupid to be likely to graduate or just too poor) you're fucked and have to go to the streets to beg for money from charities/the rich.... if you do get the money you're still in no way guaranteed to get a job, and if you do not, you're still equally or even more seriously fucked.

How does any of this work in your imagination? What do you plan to do with the probably over 100 million more unemployed people that will be a reality in the not so distant future? They cannot all get employed because there's no need for that much human labor in a world in which machines are simply better at performing most tasks so I was trying to ask what do you imagine these people do?

Are you saying it's just fine to let these people die off if some rich fucker somewhere does not want to feed them voluntarily? That it would be okay for all of these people to be killed the moment they don't act cogs in fa corporate machine? That, the moment an individual can be replaced by machinery and has no skills left with which to compete, he/she becomes worthless and deserves to die?

You think you can have a system that will promote welfare through oppression and not destroy jobs and move businesses elsewhere?

Jobs are gone anyway in the mid-to-long term, there's nothing the governments can do to make human beings competitive with machines anyone with half a brain realizes this already (which is for example why tech billionaires like Musk have started taking up the notion of universal basic income, because they understand the realities set forth by automation, being in the business of automation themselves). Once artificial intelligence arrives machines will outperform humans at any job, and according to some researcher human level ie. is not further than 4-5 decades away. Even if that estimate is off a hundred or 200 years, we will get there one day provided we keep on improving the information processing capabilities of our technology

I've been trying to hammer this home but you don't seem to be able or wiling to understand it: there is no way that paid employment will be the basis of most people's day-to-day life in half a century, because we've created technology making ourselves as workers inferior to machines. The age of man-driven manufacturing is closing.

Businesses need customers. If they have no paying customers, they have no profits. If 80 % of the people have no income because they have no job and receive no social benefits, they cannot afford to buy anything. And while the small elite class will no doubt use their wealth as they do now to by luxury items and so on, they will not be able to compensate for the gigantic dent in the econmy that will be left if you eliminate the basis of consumer demand, ie. the consumer class of people itself. Which means that unless some UBI-like system is implemented, 2 things will happen:

a) majority of people in the west will die lacking access to basic necessities
b) because of a) companies will lose insane amounts of customers, which will effectively destroy most companies

As a result you're left with a small bunch of people who've managed to hoard all the resources to themselves, essentially people/families who've so much wealth that it's inherited and increased by time and investing it. th 1-2 % of class that now owns over half of everything in US. The Waltons, the Kochs, etc.. these will be doing fine together with their friends/possible servants etc. Then there'll be a slim class of highly eductaed people who will likely work for aforementioned elite in the few positions that cannot yet be automated, rest will essentially be starved to death unless something is done.

You speak of the USSR in disgusting, but your own model is even worse and you don't seem to honestly realize it. You're envisioning a future in which the vast majority of people have NOTHING. No income, no jobs, nothing. This creates a vast underclass of people that will either turn to crime and violence in an attempt to keep themselves alive, or die.

Just like in the USSR, you're boiling the value of the individual down to the individual's ability to be productive (the only difference is productive for whom, in the USSR you needed to be productive for the state, you're saying one needs to be able to be productive to a corporation) and entirely neglecting the scientific/economic fact that we're fast approaching the end of human beings as factors of production, with or without state intervention.

So no, you've still not either understood the question/problem posed to you or you have and have decided to talk about unrelated things because you've realized you have no answers, and your model would lead to the slow and agonizing death of millions, making your vision of future america far more horrid than the USSR ever was.

Comment Re:This is a good thing (Score 1) 395

No, I'm saying they helkd a god damn press release in which they stated they inted to both keep their headquarters located in Helsinki and keep paying both theior personal taxes and corporate taxes here because they want to support the society without which they wouldn't have had the chance to become so successful

"We've received a lot of help from society, and now it is our turn to give something back," Paananen said, writes Helsingin Sanomat.

And again, please explain how your model intends to account for the disappearance of jobs en mass due to automation. Because people will need higher education in the future even more than they do today but it will not guarantee them employment.

So are you really saying that the 98 % of society that isn't extremely wealthy just has to first take massive debt to even be able to compete in the for the few jobs that will remain, and the rest that do not get either employment or education - ie. probably over half the population in 3-4 decades) will have to just hope for donations from the elite class or die?

What? If you take any form of income away from that amount of people,m do you understand what that will do the corporations when they'll lose a significant chunk of consumers, let alone for societal stability overall etc...

Comment Re:This is a good thing (Score 1) 395

So, instead of afressing any of the problems I pointed out in your propsed model taking into consideration that the possibilities for employment will be highly reduced in advanced economies in the coming decades, you ignore all the facts and just choose to keep on with the nonsensical strawman of ''oppression'. The guys behind Supercell (the makes of the Clash of Clans hit and recent billionaires) voluntarily paid their taxes into Finland because they said they consider the system here to be the primary reason for their success, so this oppression angle is just bullshit.

Solid, very solid. How do you expect anyone to take your ideas even vaguely seriously when you cannot even mount an argument to defend them when problems are pointed out?

Comment Re:This is a good thing (Score 2) 395

There shouldn't be any such thing as a 'safety net'

Ah yes, what a glorious future it will be when 90 % of current low to minimum skill jobs are entirely automated and quite a large chunk of normal office jobs as well. Have you not followed the projections on the effects of technology to employment: there is no way there will be jobs for everyone in the future in industrialized nations, because pretty soon we'll reach a point in which a low-skill human is simply inferior/less efficient in most jobs compared to a machine. Do some actual reading::

According to our estimate, 47 percent of total US employment is in the high risk category, meaning that associated occupations are potentially automatable over
some unspecified number of years, perhaps a decade or two.

And that's just the estimate for the next couple of decades, the nu,ber will only increase as time goes on. Once we hit AI it will effectively make all human labor pretty much obsolete.

People should save on their own, it needs to be a fully personal responsibility

So where does this saving come from where the chances are that there simply isn't work available for a majority of non/low-educated individuals in a couple devades? How do they save when they have no marketable skills, and in your vision of plutocratic america I assume getting an education that would offer the a slightly better (but not guaranteed) employment also costs a fuckton of money?

If self reliance and family fail, then it's a charity case (if anybody wants to donate)

Ah, so in your vision of an idela society most people who aren't born into a wealthy family simply die off unless some rich asshole manages to have some pity for them. What a place to live in, truly.

but it must *never* be a case of government oppression for the sake of edge cases.

I live in a modern social-democratic country (Finland) in which my tax money is used to fund the education, health care and other basic needs of my fellow citizens. I don't consider this oppression in the least, and I fail to see why anyone sane would. I mean, firstly, the wealthy individuals who run companies here are only able to do so because they enjoy a population of highly educated, healthy individuals and a stable infrastructure. Without these things commerce itself would be impossible, so it makes complete sense, from a both indvidual as well as corporate perspective, to rpvide such base level fundamental services with tax-funds. There's nothing oppressive about societies pooling resources and collectively funding essential services, that's the very reason societies are born in the first place and we don't live in a state of anarchy.

I was born in the USSR, I am fully aware of how socialism works and I reject it fully as well.

Ah yes, the age old 'b-b-b-but the soviet union was horrible' card which conveniently ignores the last half a century of development in northern and western Europe in which socialism is implemented entirely differently from the soviet union and has by all possible metrics achieved vastly superior results.

Have you ever been to the Norodic countries? Germany? France?

Yeah, we aren't exactly living in the soviet union here you doofus, and just because countries like the USSR and others have managed to fuck up socialistic ideals by turning into tyranies doesn't mean that the only feasible way forward is some weird ancap plutocracy in which you have no social mobility whatsoever unless you suck enough rich CEO dick to make them fund your education/living..

Is that really your vision of an ideal society in an age when we're nearing the end of humans as the main factors of production? Because unless you're someone with a doctorate level education in something like machione learning, physics, medicine, etc.. chances are that under such a model you yourself will be begging for mercy from the Zuckerbergs of the world as they drive past you.

If it is, all I can say is: good luck with that, I'll take my 'socialist hellhole' which ranks above the US in happiness index, together with 10 other countries all of which have universal healthhcare and most have universal education systems.

Wrap yourself firmly in the american flag and masturbate to Atlas shrugged and keep telling yourself nothing needs to change and we can all return to the 1950s if we just wish it hard enoigh. The rest of us will be occupying observable reality.

Comment Re:This is a good thing (Score 1) 395

Sure, there are plenty of minimum wage jobs available,

Not for long though. Low-skilled humans are being surpassed by machinery at a fast rate. Self-checkouts, self-driving cars, automated warehousing, automated electronic invoicing, etc etc The Era oif the lowly educated but well paid worker is fast coming to an end. Sure, the automation also creates some jobs, but the further into the future we go, the less and less jobs there will be for people with little to no education simply because they will rarely provide any benefit to having a machine do the same job.

This is why not just America, but all of the industrialized world needs to start re-.inventing the social safety nets and considering something like basic income, because all projections currently point to the amount of unemployment only growing in th future decades. Achieving high employment rate in an environment were humans are unnecessary as factors of production in many fields is not possible.

Comment Re:Washington Post Amazon (Score 4, Interesting) 294

rather than trying to use their ad service to micromanage what people see and hear

But there's no way for them NOT to do that. Ad-revenue follows the amount of views, which means if they do nothing they're essentially taking a stance of 'we'll facilitate the spread of any type of mis-information as long as it makes us money". So they're already doing it now, they're just slightly changing their parameters. It's their product and platform, they have no obligation whatsoever to spread lies to make money if they don't want to.

Fake news is not good, but it is not Google's job to "correct" it.

And why not? It's a search engine, the point of which is to provide people accurate information. If some trolls/hackers/political shills/whatever try to skew the search results so that upon googling thing X, instead a completely unrelated/false article Y comes up, that means their product is not operating as intended and they should correct it.

Comment Re:cost (Score 2, Interesting) 201

Sorry, but I have no faith in numbers from Wiki or the LCOE they cite, and further, they include TCO figures for wind/solar that are largely based on speculation and guesswork


he following data are from the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook released in 2015 (AEO2015). They are in dollars per megawatt-hour (2013 USD/MWh). These figures are estimates for plants going into service in 2020.[55] The LCOE below is calculated based off a 30-year recovery period using a real after tax weighted average cost of capital (WACC) of 6.1%. For carbon intensive technologies 3 percentage points are added to the WACC. (This is approximately equivalent fee of $15 per metric ton of carbon dioxide CO2)

Link to the report itself.
So, what, exactly is wrong with this? I mean, oil prices are subsidized by themselves by most oil producing countries.

EA estimates reveal that fossil-fuel subsidies are becoming increasingly concentrated in the major oil- and gas-exporting countries. The share of Middle East oil exporters, for example, in the world total has risen from 35% to 40% over the last four years. The main reason for this trend is that high oil prices over much of the period meant that they, as net oil exporters, did not have the same fiscal incentive to reform energy pricing as that in many other parts of the world. Instead, the rise in government revenues from oil exports allowed an increase in government spending, often on social support programmes, expanding infrastructure and subsidies to food and energy. Over the period 2009-2014, fossil-fuel subsidies for this group of countries have, on average, been equivalent to more than one-quarter of government expenditure.

Soi why would it be wrong to factor in the tax-breaks and susidies given to renewables, when the point of comparison in terms of fossil fuels is also heavily subsidized by producing nations and the environmental damage caused by oil/coal means that the true cost of using these fuels is in fact externalized because there's a delay between using fossil fuel's and seeing the effect of the usage in the climate and thus the global economy?

The inclusion of subsidies does not make the price comparisons invalid, it makes them more accurate. Unless you want to start to calculate the actual, unsubsidized cost of oil/coal as well.

Comment Re:cost (Score 2) 201

If that were true that they were cheaper everyone would be figuratively storming the gates to use wind/solar, the wind/solar equipment makers couldn't keep the stuff on the shelves, and they'd be abandoning other generation means within a couple years because they'd make more money.

Well, no, that's not quite the case. Onshore wind is already cheaper than coal, and photovoltaic solar energy is essentially pretty much at even when it comes to the costs of a more advanced/modern coal power.

The reason the rush to these forms is not yet happening is that the the big issue with renewables is load-balancing. That is, since wind/solar generation is erratic and depends on the time of day/year, it means that a grid ran primarily using these forms cannot easily answer to increased demand. This is why at the moment with current grids, the efficient way to ditch fossil fuel's is to use a combination of renewables with nuclear, which is also on par or cheaper to coal and can be used to provide additional energy when the renewables don't produce enough.

The danger is that if the share of renewables is increased but nuclear is left out, the additional demand needs to be met with fossil fuels. This in fact is happening in places like germany where the well-intentioned but shortsighted Green party has put a ban on new nuclear power plants and they're driving the existing ones down. So despite the amount of renewable capacity going up, CO2 emissions are also going up because nuclear output is coming down and is being supplemented by coal-plants.

Comment Re:Climate Hysteria (Score 1) 1066

So you're claiming that something so easy to understand can only be understood by those who study it which means that everything you've said is complete an utter horse shit.

No, that's not what I'm claiming you idiot. The greenhouse effect simply means that certain gases such as Co2 and methane bounce back k heat and thus warm the atmosphere, which can and has been easily proved in a laboratory setting. This effect is not in dispute among scientists.

Oh, so do these lab test also account for CMEs and cosmic radiation both of which are well known for quake activity and cloud seeding rates?


Many climate scientists agree that sunspots and solar wind could be playing a role in climate change, but the vast majority view it as very minimal and attribute Earthâ(TM)s warming primarily to emissions from industrial activityâ"and they have thousands of peer-reviewed studies available to back up that claim.

Peter Foukal of the Massachusetts-based firm Heliophysics, Inc., who has tracked sunspot intensities from different spots around the globe dating back four centuries, also concludes that such solar disturbances have little or no impact on global warming. Nevertheless, he adds, most up-to-date climate modelsâ"including those used by the United Nationsâ(TM) prestigious Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)â"incorporate the effects of the sunâ(TM)s variable degree of brightness in their overall calculations.

Ironically, the only way to really find out if phenomena like sunspots and solar wind are playing a larger role in climate change than most scientists now believe would be to significantly reduce our carbon emissions. Only in the absence of that potential driver will researchers be able to tell for sure how much impact natural influences have on the Earthâ(TM)s climate.

Based on what?

Based on the simple fact that it's the most prevalent greenhouse has in the atmosphere and thus has the most effect in the heat retaining capability of the atmosphere.

So you're saying if the Sun vanished tomorrow that the CAGW hypothisis would be unaffected?

No you idiot, I never said that the original source of the heat is not the sun and neither did the scientists. The greenhouse effect works by binding/bouncing back heat from the sun thus warming the Earth. No-one's disputing that the heat itself is coming from the sun, the whole point of global warming is that dumping more greenhouse gases such as CO2 into the atmosphere means it will retain more of the heat provided by the sun thus affecting the climate.

So the sun warms the Earth, and increasing the amount of greenhouse gases increases the rate of warming. There's nothing controversial or disputable about this, it's quite simple science.

Where has rain fall or droughts increased?

More heat --> more energy in the atmosphere --> more rains and storms. This logic is not disputed among climatologists.

Oh like what?

Increased foliage in places like deserts and arctic tundras?

No, like such increased rainfall that crops will not grow where they now do. Too much rain will prevent normal food crops from growing, while places close to the equator will get so warm that nothing will grow there,

However, increased warming has ALWAYS 'triggered' the mass emergence of life.

Yes, but that warming has usually occurred over several centuries and millenia. The problem is that the warming being caused by man is happening at a much faster rate t6han any natural cycles that plant/animal life does not have the time to adapt to it, thus leading to mass extinction.

Clearly you're a fucking brainwashed shill

Says the moron too dumb to understand the basics of the science involved. Do some actual fucking reading into climatology.

Comment Re:Climate Hysteria (Score 1) 1066

You'd have to be a complete fucking idiot if you think CO2 is the control knob the Climate...pfft.

No, you'd have to be a scientist with a working understanding of the greenhouse effect. You can measure the heat trapping ability of CO2 in a lab or test it yourself by building a greenhouse, we can do the math on it and figure out how much an increase in CO in the atmosphere traps more heat. It's not the only controller of heat in the atmosphere but it is the most prevalent and therefore most important

Do you understand that increasing the greenhouse effect has real life implications really fast: sea-levels rising, rainfall increasing in other areas whereas droughts will increase alsewhere, more and bigger storms etc. Plus there's the risk of chain-reactions occurring: once the northern permafrost starts to melt it will release methane which is 20 times stronger as a greenhouse gas the CO2, which will them increase the warming yet again melting more of the frost and creating an unstoppable feedback loop.

We're not in complete control of the climate but we're having a major impact on it in ways which do not bode well for the future. The oil and coal companies are racking up short term profit the total cost of which will be seen in the daces to come when coastal cities start to get flooded and people start dying more from food shortages and droughts. If the oceans get acidified enough for mass extinction of plankton to occur that puts a stop to major oxygen producer and has the change to quite literally wipe us out as well.

These being the realities of the situation anyone favoring oil or coal for energy production at this point has to be an idiot, ignorant or just self-destructive.

FYI, China (the biggest contributor of global emissions) plans a 20% increase in coal by 2020:

Wrong. Their CO2 emissions are rising because of among other things cars/traffic until 2030 when they're projected to peak and turn it around. Providing clean energy for over a billion people is not exactly a project you can achieve overnight. As for coal itself: they're already planning restrictions on coal mining/use because major cities have severe issues with smog/pollutants causing significant damage to the people and industries, they have a vested interest in fixing this stuff.

Paris Agreement targets

China’s NDC, submitted to the UNFCCC on 3 September 2016 includes a number of elements:

Increase the share of non-fossil energy sources in the total primary energy supply to around 20% by 2030;
Increase the share of natural gas in the total primary energy supply to around 10% by 2020;
Lower the carbon intensity of GDP by 60% to 65% below 2005 levels by 2030;
Increase the forest stock volume by around 4.5 billion cubic metres, compared to 2005 levels;
Proposed reductions in the production of HCFC22 (35% below 2010 levels by 2020 and 67.5% by 2025) and “controlling” HFC23 production.
These elements were all in China’s INDC on 30 June 2015, and were carried over to the NDC submitted to the Paris Agreement on 3 September 2016. China’s NDC also includes a comprehensive list of actions to achieve its 2020 and 2030 targets. A large number of the policies have already been implemented.

2020 pledge

China’s 2020 pledge consists of the following elements:

Overall reduction of CO2 emissions per unit of GDP by 40–45% below 2005 levels by 2020;
Increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 15% by 2020;
Increase forest coverage by 40 million hectares and forest stock volume by 1.3 billion cubic metres by 2020 from 2005 levels.
We analysed the effects of all these targets, including the non-fossil target for 2020 and 2030. To do this, energy-related emissions until 2020 were assumed to follow current policy projections from the IEA WEO 2015, adapted to reach the targets of 10% gas by 2020 and 15% and 20% non-fossil fuels by 2020 and 2030, respectively. Post-2020, we assume curtailed emissions growth rates to reach a peaking between 2025 and 2030. CO2 emissions from other sectors, cement and industry, as well as non-CO2 emissions, were assumed to follow present policies. This results in absolute emission levels of 13.2–13.5 GtCO2e excl. LULUCF in 2030.

So, right now because of the apparent idiocracy that Trump is taking the whole of US into science-wise, the fact of the matter is Red fucking China has a more rational, more comprehensive approach to the climate than the US. You see the one thing that being the oldest continuously existing nation on the planet has afforded the Chinese is a sense of perspective and scale: they understand that even if a policy in the hort term is profitable but leads to massive problems, famine, death and possible extinction in a century or so, it is not a smart policy and should be avoided. The fact that american top level officials are the only industrialized nation that has trouble grasping this tells me there must be something seriously fucking wrong with your educational system.

Slashdot Top Deals

In every hierarchy the cream rises until it sours. -- Dr. Laurence J. Peter