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


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:It's obviously not that. (Score 1) 470

So do something about funding welfare and educating people and birth control - like planned parenthood does - to reduce the number of people getting pregnant who don't want to be. Then there will be less killing of 'people'. If you JUST target abortions (and defund everything that people who support them do) you create MORE SUFFERING, even if you succeed in less abortions.

Jesus H Sheesh! It's not complicated.

Comment Re:Isn't this just virtue signaling at this point? (Score 1) 237

Yes, reducing energy use is going to be a problem. Does that mean should leave the problem as late as possible, when solving it will be even harder?

At least it sounds as if you accept 'the truth'. The reason you often get 'the Hornets nest' response is because until everyone accepts that we have reduce energy use and/or change production methods, it's going to be really hard to discuss and implement the alternatives.

Comment Re: Paging Dr. Faustus (Score 2) 481

The hockey stick has not been discredited. It has been replicated numerous times, by numerous people and organisations.

> Climate deniers threw all their might at disproving the famous climate change graph. Here's why they failed.

> Arguments over the reconstructions have been taken up by fossil fuel industry funded lobbying groups attempting to cast doubt on climate science.

> In fact, later studies support the key conclusion: the world is warmer now than it has been for at least 1000 years

The graphs we /were/ talking about go back much further - XKCD's 20,000 years, and your favourite the Vostok core, 400,000. And they all show the same data.

Good luck with your research.


Comment Re:You omitted a factual argument (Score 1) 481

NASA has a page dedicated to it:
> But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events. ... In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.

It took me seconds to find. If you really cared, or hadn't already made your mind up, you would know that too.

Comment Re:You omitted a factual argument (Score 1) 481

Temperature is not off the scale for natural variation - yet. It's within the ranges we've seen before (when there were ice sheets miles thick or tropical regions covering Europe and the US, of course). But the rate of chance is unprecedented. Utterly. Why might that be?

And if you update the Vostok Ice Core data with modern CO2 levels... it is off the chart. Literally:

Comment Re: Paging Dr. Faustus (Score 2) 481

Oh sorry - you're right. Because these graphs have totally different scales and orientations they look nothing like each other.

But wait a minute... if we look at just the data that both graphs cover (temperature, the last 20000 years, highlighted with a black box):

And then line up the scales so they are the same on both graphs (X=-5C to +5C, Y=0 to -20000 years) we can see that the data does actually match up pretty well, considering I did this with paint:

Consistent science FTW! Thanks for playing.

Of course, it's the last 100 years that are the most interesting - the heating is happening at an _unprecedented_ rate. The ~2 degree increase of the last century would have taken millennia to occur naturally - as shown by the very graphs you supplied as evidence!

Don't misuse actual data. It doesn't work, because the data shows AWG is happening.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Being against torture ought to be sort of a bipartisan thing." -- Karl Lehenbauer