Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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 If all of the summary is true, then (Score 1) 478

What should anyone care? Coal is done. Wind and solar are unstoppable. So Trump's deregulation will not impact anything at all, right? Maybe at worst a little bit more coal-related pollution until coal runs out and solar and wind in their inevitable supremacy wipe the need for coal, gas, oil, and nuclear right off the deck.

Comment True, but misleading (Score 2) 187

A leading "fact-check site" regularly uses this bit of dissemblance to describe right-of-center incidents, while left-of-center equivalents seem to get "True" or at least "Mostly true." As with all things, there are exceptions.

They'll do a good job explaining--reluctantly, if we infer from their words--how whatever was said or referenced was, in fact, accurate. Then launch 3 more paragraphs explaining why the facts don't matter because of who said them.

And this was common pre-Trump.

Comment Why won't the drug dealers and criminals just (Score 1) 521

Apply for their UBI and then keep on committing the crimes that were their "job" before the UBI? You're just handing people free money, sure they're gonna take it.

I'm sure there is some non-zero fraction of less-driven criminals who will forego a further life of crime once they get the UBI, but I fail to see how a UBI has any significant impact on crime at all.

Comment 10k years to drain but via large sudden outflows (Score 1) 250


"Between approximately 11,100 and 10,900 years ago, Lake Agassiz’s north and northeastern shores consisted of a continuous cliff of ice, but its eastern and western shores formed what geologists refer to as the “Campbell Beach.” This extensive sand and gravel ridge, most evident in south-western Manitoba, is possibly the most eloquent testimony to the existence of this once-great lake. Shortly thereafter, a new outlet through the ice opened into the Lake Superior basin, thus allowing Agassiz to drain in that direction. A glacial readvance subsequently blocked this outlet and the lake rose to the Campbell Beach once again. This stage too was relatively short-lived; some 9500 years ago the eastern outlet re-opened and Agassiz drained rapidly—probably with catastrophic results. As much as 3,000 cubic kilometers of water (seven times the volume of Lake Erie) coursed into the Superior Basin in just a few weeks."

Comment Not a "climate change denier", not alarmist either (Score 2) 250

Even if warming is part of a natural cycle, it does seem quite likely that man is exacerbating the situation with CO2 emissions and other pollution. If nothing else, if we could really run our societies without belching pollution into the atmosphere, it'd be the better alternative. I mean, pollution is just bad, m'kay?

So please don't call me a "denier". My issue is that few of the proposed "solutions" seem to be based on science. I see the occasional discussion of carbon sequestration and that sort of thing, but far more often the "solution" is just a cloak hiding the proposer's socialist SJW motives.

For example, the IPCC report on climate change...Let's doesn't seem to be about the effect of climate on plants and animals (and humans). It does mention climatey things... It said that without action to address the problem, by the year 2100, hundreds of millions of people could be affected by coastal flooding and displaced due to land loss. "Impacts from recent extreme climatic events, such as heat waves, droughts, floods, and wildfires, show significant vulnerability and exposure of some ecosystems and many human systems to climate variability," the report warned.

But mainly, the IPCC report seems to be about poverty and income inequality and funding needed to address it.

The report also said climate change had the largest impact on people who are socially and economically marginalized. "Climate change will exacerbate poverty in low and lower-middle income countries, including high mountain states, countries at risk from sea-level rise, and countries with indigenous peoples, and create new poverty pockets in upper-middle to high-income countries in which inequality is increasing," [the report] said.

But funding needed to offset the impact of climate change is lacking, the report warned, saying developing countries would need between $70 billion to $100 billion a year to implement needed measures. And efforts to reduce the effects of climate change would only have a marginal effect on reducing poverty unless "structural inequalities are addressed and needs for equity among poor and nonpoor people are met."

It's not about climate change or environmentalism, it really hasn't been for a long's about socialist economic policy--redistribution of wealth. The leaders of the movement readily admit as much.

(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War... First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

Christiana Figueres, leader of the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.”

Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Gus Hall, former leader of the Communist Party USA: "Human society cannot basically stop the destruction of the environment under capitalism. Socialism is the only structure that makes it possible."

Daphne Muller, green-progressive-liberal writer for Salon: "This moment requires we the people to rethink democracy as a global mechanism for enacting policy for and by the planet."

Peter Berle, President of the National Audubon Society: "We reject the idea of private property."

David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club: "The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature's proper steward and society's only hope."

Mikhail Gorbachev, communist and former leader of U.S.S.R.: "The emerging 'environmentalization' of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government."

Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth: “A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.”

Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist: "It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty."

Slashdot Top Deals

"You need tender loving care once a week - so that I can slap you into shape." - Ellyn Mustard