Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
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:Isn't that anti-science? (Score 1, Funny) 1055

Looks like I can't edit posts on Slashdot (it's been years). I remember hearing about dihydrogen monoxide in my high school chemistry class. And also in a college science class, and once or twice by people I knew. You know, It even sounds more dangerous than carbon dioxide. Did you know that even a small amount of inhilation can lead to death? See also, of

Comment Re:Isn't that anti-science? (Score 1) 1055

You may call me a "global warming skeptic" if it pleases. But I wonder, isn't there more species diversity in tropical climates? Despite whether or not there is warming, whether or not it is man-made, solar-induced, etc... I'm kind of thinking of Darwin and his travels and the theory of evolution. For example, the rainforests of the Amazon. Don't warmer climates lead to more rain? CO2 levels not coming at the expense of oxygen levels (plants are able to photosynthesize better). Granted there are some polluting industries that should be kept within the boundaries of being environmentally responsible. Better cars and industrial processes. I'm not denouncing the research and development of "green" technologies and better emissions standards for newer vehicles/equipment (efficient energy utilization), but is it really Carbon Dioxide (plant food which leads to O2 and crops we consume), or is it industrial (toxic) waste that's the greater danger to the planet? I've also heard that the other planets in the solar system are arguably having "global warming" as well and that the sun is causing this. I haven't received a dollar from the oil companies and sometimes even resent them as I fill up my car. Just because I am skeptical of AGW doesn't mean I should be treated as a "creationist" (I watched the NOVA special on Dover's school board and the trial). In many ways, the creationists involved who were on the attack were fools. But "creationism" is a broad brush with which to paint other people. Science is about finding models that fit and discarding ones that don't. But also being open to new findings. Who knows, perhaps Gore (as well as Clinton, Bush, and Obama) scammed us. Strange things happen.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The way of the world is to praise dead saints and prosecute live ones." -- Nathaniel Howe