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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:clouds (Score 1) 65

You are completely wrong. Despite what the naysayers claim, the climate models are doing just fine. What you suggest is just a rehashing of the old denier argument that the climate is too complicated for anyone to understand and therefore global warming is false. And yet, as we keep spewing greenhouse gases into the environment the temperature keeps increasing just as was postulated it would way back in the 1890s. So even with their rudimentary understanding, the scientists back in the 19th century had more of an understanding of the mechanics of the climate than you want to credit those from today.

Yes, there is still more to learn about the climate, and so models will get more accurate. But there is nothing to suggest that anything we find anything that will alter the outcome to any significant degree such that we can just ignore the problem.

Comment Re:"The science is settled" (Score 1) 65

Quibbling? I think that is the most important part. Or do you think 0.1C over 100 years is the same as 10C over 100 years?

Whenever there is some change that has to be made to the predictions it is never as large as you suggested. I defy you to name a single time that some error or new mechanism in climate science that has ever made such a difference to the projected outcomes.

If scientists found that the warming levels would be limited to 0.1C over 100 years then it would be major news and would cause joyous celebrations everywhere. Hell, if this kept us below the 2C target of the Paris agreement then it would be plastered all over the news sites. But this isn't that news. Nobody has even suggested in any quietly optimistic way that this is that news. For a 0.1C increase to be the case, the temperature graph would have to suddenly turn to be almost completely flat. Even if CO2 and methane levels stayed constant at current levels, the temperature rise would be more than that.

Also, no model shows a prediction anywhere near 10C, so your example was of a range that has nothing to do with the temperature rise over the next 100 years. Your estimates are widely inaccurate, as is your belief that this is anything more than a quibble.

Comment Re:Unintended consequences (Score 1) 346

The problem still remains that "over-abundance" will only apply to labor. It won't apply to capacity nor to raw resources. We'll have lots of humans with not enough to do, whereas Marxism remains a "classical" economic system which still thinks in terms of scarcity of labor.

I don't think the future is Communist, but neither do I think it is strictly capitalist. I think we're still going to have a fundamentally consumer society, still at its core free market, it's just that labor will no longer be an issue. It will mean adjusting precisely how it is that society as a whole profits from the means of production. And remember that Marxism was always more than merely an economic theory, but was fundamentally a socio-political theory. It was innovative in that it viewed economics as the very core, but it proposed a good deal more than simply "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", and involved revolution, dictatorship and what really does amount to a sort of single party state (because, after all, who needs more than one political movement when Marxism is perfect).

In the end, I expect we'll probably see a shift towards capital gains taxes, higher resource rents, transactional taxes (ie. taxes on the purchase or sale of bonds and shares) and other such mechanisms, and while lots of corporate interests will kick up a mighty storm, but there's little choice in the matter. At some point, robots will do a great deal of the work.

Comment Re: where does all this money come from? (Score 1, Insightful) 346

Just because people pay you for your services doesn't mean you create more than you consume. Perhaps you have some sort of serious illness, which means your health insurance provider may be paying you more than you are paying them. Perhaps you have enough write offs to heavily reduce your actual taxable income, meaning others are actually paying more tax than you.

But do you really pay enough money in taxes that it covers the building of the road past your house, pay for the wages and equipment of the firefighters who may have to put out your fire? There's an entire infrastructure out there that is paid for by the economic output of an entire society, and the idea that somehow anyone, even a billionaire, can claim responsibility for a significant fraction of it is absurd.

Comment Re: Ontario, largest subnational debtor on the pla (Score 1) 346

It's called taxes. We can debate which taxes would be best, but presumably if someone is making something, whether it be with human beings, robots or some combination, they also have sales, which means there are any number of financial transactions which can be taxed. Pick your poison; corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, excise taxes, etc. etc. etc. In the end, money is just a means of counting value.

Comment Re:clouds (Score 2) 65

I'm not a denier, and yet I know that it is extremely arrogant to assert that we *know* what is going on with the climate. We don't. We have a hypothesis. Most good scientists will say the same thing. Only arrogant fools assert brazenly that either (a) humans are definitely heating up the planet; or (b) humans are definitely not heating up the planet. We don't have conclusive proof of either.

The IPCC states that the evidence is unequivocal that global warming is occurring and that the odds are at least 95% that humans are the principal cause of it. It seems that the scientists of the world disagree with your assessment. Maybe they are being arrogant as you say, or maybe they just know more about this than you do.

For example, you think that the 200 year timescale is insignificant on a scale of 4.5 billion years, and yet it is the very short time that makes it significant. The temperature rise over such a short period is way above any naturally occurring climate change. You say that we only believe that CO2 and methane are involved, and yet the effect of those gases on the transfer of various forms of energy have been known by scientists for centuries. In fact, the idea that man's increase of greenhouse gases could result in the warming of the planet was postulated long before we had the measurements to back it up. Your notion of what scientists have established is over 200 years out of date.

Finally, another claim that you make that I suspect is wrong is that you are not a denier. It is a favorite tactic of climate change deniers to make it appear that we are less sure of what is going on by suggesting that there is still debate within the scientific community about the causes. This has gone on ever since that leaked Republican party memo that warned "should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly".

Comment Re:clouds (Score 2) 65

Is it wrong to claim phrenology is wrong because there was one thing they hadn't factored. Hint. It's not one thing. It's one thing after another after another - an endless stream of excuses to account for the fact that the models fail to predict accurately. Funny but KE=1/2mv^2 is 100% accurate, every time, day or night, in any newtonian frame of reference.

There have been errors found in the models due to previously unknown factors (like the one being discussed now). It should be noted that these errors were found by scientists; the ones the deniers keep saying are in collusion to only back the existing theories and hide the mistakes. (Oops! Yet another denialist theory that is not borne out by the evidence. Why is it that these errors are not treated with the same passion by the ignorant masses?)

So for all the mistakes found, which ones have ever made enough difference to totally disprove the science behind the climate change theories? Answer: none at all. Some of the updates that have been incorporated into the models have shown that the older models actually underestimated the amount of warming going on. Still, it's far better just to say that there were mistakes in the models, and that therefore is must all be wrong, rather than have to admit that the models keep getting more accurate at showing that AGW is real.

It is the same as bringing up phrenology to show that scientists can get it wrong, and therefore they must be wrong now. That is simply the same fuzzy-headed logic that brought about phrenology in the first place. There have been many more times that science in general got it right, even against opposition by the laypeople; the link between smoking and cancer, that asbestos is dangerous, that electricity doesn't leak from the wall sockets, that seat belts and helmets save lives, that plants and animals evolve to become new species. Congratulations. You have become just another one in the long list of people who think they know better than the trained scientists who spend every day analyzing the facts and figures.

Deniers like to jump on any news they think will embarrass the scientific community and try to pretend that it is a game-changer. They love to say "I told you so" even though they didn't tell us so. No denier has ever said that the methane levels are lower in the atmosphere than predicted because of the effect of hydroxl molecules. They simply don't have the scientific knowledge to understand why they say that AGW is wrong.

On another note, it's a good thing that the Trump administration will gut the funding and ability of NASA and the Department of Energy from being able to help find discoveries that show us where the models are wrong (or even potentially bring about techniques to reduce the greenhouse gases that are already in the atmosphere).

Comment Re:clouds (Score 2, Insightful) 65

Don't you think that it is more arrogant to claim that all the climate models are wrong in their entirety simply because there was one thing that they hadn't factored? What will happen is that once some more research is done, the models will be updated and the outcomes will be affected in an insignificant way. But the graphs will continue to go in the same direction and none of this will suddenly disprove the theories. And above all, the temperatures will keep on rising.

The habit of the deniers to find hope in even the tiniest of adjustments to the theories and models show how unscientific their viewpoint is. It is the same as how they all claimed that the world was actually cooling and pointed to how in 1998 it dropped back to same level as 1997 because it was an unusually hot year. They ignored all the decades of warming that we have had up until that point and desperately clung to the smallest of blips on the graph (which has been shown since then to be entirely insignificant). And yet they are still so sure of their beliefs (without any evidence) that they call the people who do have theories, equations, facts, and figures arrogant!

Comment Re:"The science is settled" (Score 2) 65

You are misrepresenting what was said. The science was settled that an increase in greenhouse gas emissions by humans leads to a warming of the atmosphere. Nobody ever said that all climate research had been finished and that every aspect of global warming was known.

So yes, the science that was being discussed at the time remains settled because this new research does not disprove AGW. It is merely quibbling about the rates of change.

Comment Re:Finally: real science (Score 1) 65

Finally some scientists that have the guts to say that they don't know why something is happening! Rejoice!

What a stupid thing to say. Perhaps you would like to cite an example of any scientist who claims that they know everything. You won't be able to, because you just lied.

Think about it, if you can. If scientists went around saying that they knew it all then they would put themselves out of business because there would be no need to do any more research. Scientific papers usually provide margins of error to show the parts where they still don't know all the factors. They also will conclude with where they still think that more research is needed, either because there questions that their research could not answer (or was out of the scope of the paper) or there were new questions raised by the results. That is hardly the thing that would need to be said if the scientists thought that they had all the answers.

Slashdot Top Deals

The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much.

Working...