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

 



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:Similar (Score 3, Interesting) 211

Climate science is "systems science". It is very much a hard science; however, there'll always be uncertainties for political ideologues to talk up. We've got about a 10% of creating a disaster, and no second planet earth yo move to, and that alone means we should be talking about appropriate actions, and not *if* there's a problem. It's very easy for the oil industry to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt over the science, which is just a tried and true political game. The scientists themselves will not (by and large) explain what to do -- that's not their expertise -- but they are convinced that there is a problem, and their reasons are clearly explained. Skepticalscience.com has a summary of "skeptic arguments" and what scientists say. You can always read the peer reviewed literature yourself. But somehow I think you'll just retreat back to your blog and news sites, which give you the information you want to believe.

Comment Re:"Not at men's expense" (Score 1) 266

So basically, you don't know what the problem is but you do know it had better not be anything that implies it could be fixed by reducing men's dominance a little.

Oh dear. Let me get this correct. Unless you can /prove/ that men /aren't/ the cause of a problem, then the absence of proof is ipso facto, evidence of guilt.

Meanwhile, in non-science denying parts of academia, we have already firmly established that the genders differ in significant ways, esp. when it comes to preferences. And we don't discount cultural explanations for disparate racial outcomes, simply because we're showing off how virtuously non-racist we are -- while simultaneously judging white people by the color of their skin, and without any trace of irony.

Pathetic.

Comment Re:Translating for the rest of the world (Score 1) 128

Hyperloop sounds like snake-oil to me. It will never work with anything remotely like existing technologies. Think about how much heat expansion you'll get on the tubes. That means you'll have to have lots of joints for expansion. Each of these will have to have perfect seals. It will be under 10 tons of pressure per square metre, and any rupture will cause air to rush into the tube at about the speed of sound. Tons of air. Thunderf00t has a takedown video. It is worth watching, just to consider the points he brings up -- although I find he comes across as a bit of an ass.

Comment Re:Immediate issues (Score 1) 257

At some point there won't be anything we can do about it, and we'll have to learn to live in the new environment.

That time has already come. We have 100s of years before existing climate forcing reach equilibrium. The real question is how bad it is going to get. With business as usual, our descents will look back us with utter scorn.

Comment Re:Nuclear war risk (Score 2) 112

If the USA is ever attacked by North Korea, then EXPECT a disproportionate response. The US population will demand it, and the opposition party will ensure that appropriate rage is whipped up. The people of South Korea will face a massive artillery barrage, but North Korea would absolutely be flattened by the USA an its allies.

Comment Re:More accurate statement.... (Score 1) 795

IPCC using too many weasel words

I always find it interesting when scientists are simultaneously accused of making black and white statements (e.g., the language of consensus), while also using "weasel words". The simple truth is that scientists spend most of their time dealing with error bars, and those "weasel" words have been operationalized to talk about those error bars in precise ways.

Nothing, of course, will make you happy, except scientists unequivocally denying the importance AGW. When you don't like what scientists say, then the argument is simply constructed on the spot to reify your sense of "rightness". The sad truth is that it may be decades (if you live that long) before you ever contemplate any information that threatens your world view.

Comment Re:Fun (Score 1) 795

Science is not a once and for all deal *ever*. So odd thing to claim.

Climate scientists aren't claiming they've solved the problem once and for all. They are saying that they almost all agree on the basics, which includes AGW. Any alternative theory has to explain the data, and there just isn't one. If detractors had a theory, then they'd talk about it. But instead we get conspiratorial talk about "bad science" trying to, for example, settle things "once and for all".

Any disinterested person reading your argument should see through it on a moments reflection, but we don't get many disinterested people on the AGW issue, because it cuts across the moral concerns of small-government conservatism. I really think conservative philosophy is great, but it has been used by "thought shapers" (like Frank Luntz) to make the discussion fundamentally dishonest.

Comment Cognitive dissonance doesn't change the facts (Score 1) 88

The Flint water crisis was primarily due to the state and the city of Flint being bankrupt.

If the emergency manager didn't squelch the EPA report, or did just a tiny bit of due diligence, then the water situation would be fine, and a *lot* of money would have been saved.
But if you want to blame the water situation on Flint going bankrupt, then you may as well blame the situation on the big bang. Or the fact the human evolved. Or the derivatives trading that led to the financial crisis. Clutch at straws all day. The emergency manager WASTED money, and seriously poisoned a generation of children. Cognitive dissonance doesn't change the facts on the ground.

Slashdot Top Deals

Never call a man a fool. Borrow from him.

Working...