Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Followed by: (Score 1) 438

I think scientists can make some larger statements on the impacts. No one can tell you what exactly it would be like at any particular location, But what you're doing is exaggerating the amount of uncertainty, and then trying to defend warming trends by invoking even less certain predictions. It's hard not to see how you aren't just being a contrarian simply because you don't like the answers science can provide.

When rain belts shift northward in North America, arid conditions will begin to become the norm in large parts of the American Midwest, and that will mean American food security will become, at some point over the next century so, one of the most serious issues the US has ever had to face. And this isn't a matter if whether it will happen or not, the debate is over WHEN it will happen.

Pumping vast amounts of formerly sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere is just plain bad. We should be moving at all speed to alternative energy sources, and either leaving the oil and coal in the ground, or finding some other use for it that doesn't involve releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.

Comment Re: Followed by: (Score 1) 438

You do understand, I trust, that different countries have different birth rates, right, so while one country may have a very high birth rate, another country may have a very low one. You know, how Japan's population is shrinking, and India's is growing?

It often makes me wonder if being a political partisan either causes stupidity, or political partisans are just inherently stupid people.

Comment Re:Followed by: (Score 1) 438

As appealing as a Senate hearing is, I'd prefer an actual citation from literature, and not a well known skeptic. In other words, let's see the actual data your claim is based off of. Do you possess this data, or did you just rush out and find the only link you could that you thought could justify your initial claim?

Comment Re:Followed by: (Score 1) 438

Quantum mechanics is astonishingly complex, and yet we can still predict radioactive decay rates. Just handwaving away observations with "it's too complex" isn't really a critique at all. The fact is that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will inevitably trap more energy in the atmosphere. Complexity doesn't overrule thermodynamics.

Comment Re:Followed by: (Score 1) 438

Except the developing world really isn't where a large amount of the greenhouse gasses are produced. Yes, China and India are offenders, but the Industrialized world still is responsible for a huge amount of emissions. While population is a factor, it's not a simple straight line like you suggest.

Comment Re:Followed by: (Score 5, Insightful) 438

Well, to be honest with you, I don't have much time for either side. I think the Liberals, but more particularly the Left have done a lot of damage to AGW acceptance simply by trying to integrate into their own economic mumbo jumbo, and trying to beat conservative elements over the head with it. They've made one of the supreme challenges of humanity at this point of time and politicizing it for their own ends). The conservatives, on the other hand, are often just people easily manipulated by large commercial interests who want to delay significant responses to AGW long enough to maximize profits. That's why the fossil fuel companies fund crap "think tanks" like the Heartland Institute, because they serve to give conservative and libertarian types a pack of memes to trot out every time the topic of global warming comes up. A pox on both their houses, I say. Both groups are populated by idiots and demagogues.

To my mind, the time has come to simply look at the best way of dealing with the problem. For me, the simplest way and the way that it is the most market oriented is carbon pricing. Start upping the price of fossil fuels, thus allowing market forces to concentrate investment on alternatives. I don't even care if governments pocket the cash. The whole point isn't reinvestment of carbon taxes, but rather to create an artificial scarcity. This solution should be eminently favorable conservatives and libertarians, because it favors their economic approach, but of course, it will cost the likes of the Koch Brothers money, so the game goes on.

Comment Re:Followed by: (Score 4, Insightful) 438

As with any branch of science that uses statistics, no one can say that any specific event has a specific cause where multiple causes are possible. For instance, you can't tell whether a specific decay event in a lump of plutonium was caused by radioactive decay, or maybe a stray high energy cosmic ray. But what you can do is measure a large number of decay events and come up with the most probable explanation. This is true of all statistics, and it's why we have tools like statistics.

So if anyone points to a specific storm and says "That's AGW", they're not going to get much support even in the climatological community. But if someone states "The number of major floods and the intensity of those floods is increasing, and the most likely agent is AGW", well that's a statement of probability.

Comment Re:Followed by: (Score 3, Insightful) 438

Because scientific theories are just totally about what part of the political spectrum you're from.

You do understand the universe doesn't give a flying fuck whether you're a liberal, a conservative, a libertarian, an anarchist or a socialist, right? It really doesn't. CO2 absorbs and re-emits solar radiation on the liberal and the libertarian equally.

Slashdot Top Deals

In seeking the unattainable, simplicity only gets in the way. -- Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982

Working...