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:British "free speech" norms (Score 1) 70

I read that and immediately said "Bullshit!" and I was right. He was arrested for abusive behaviour and assault, not for quoting the Bible.


Did you RTFA?

At Kilmarnock Sheriff Court last month, Sheriff Alistair Watson ruled there was no case to answer and acquitted Mr Larmour of threatening or abusive behaviour, aggravated by prejudice relating to sexual orientation. The sheriff also found him not guilty of a second charge of assault aggravated by prejudice relating to sexual orientation.

He was arrested for threatening and abusive behaviour and assault. He may have been accused of those crimes because he was quoting the bible (the story does not even attempt to present the complainant's story), but he was actually arrested because he was accused of assault.

it is absolutely not OK for you to lie about it.

The sad thing is you seem to think that what the defendant claims happened is what actually happened, even when the facts are right there contradicting his story. So try reading and understanding the entire article next time, before you start spreading bullshit around. You duped yourself into believing a Fake News story here, and you have no one to blame but yourself for exposing the fact you are an easily manipulated fool.

Comment Re:Methane [Re: No complaints here] (Score 1) 364

I, as a "denier", obviously know more about AGW than you as a "true believer" do. That should actually concern you, but by tomorrow you will forget this happened and deny facts given to you to keep your flawed viewpoint while calling other people fact deniers.

This is a fairly common phenomenon where people with no expertise believe they know more than experts.

The other poster was correct, Methane may be be 25 times more potent per volume emitted (my sources say 84 times), but Anthropogenic emissions of Methane are estimated to be 300 Tg (300 million tonnes) which is about 0.3% of the emissions of Carbon Dioxide which is estimated to be 10.6 Gt (10,600 million tonnes). At your number, 25x, Methane only contributes 7.5% of the warming that CO2 contributes because there is over 300 times more CO2 emitted every year. That's why people talk about CO2 more than methane. CO2 is the dominant driver because there's so much more of it emitted every year.

You definitely know less, and should try showing some humility.

Comment Re: No complaints here (Score 1) 364

My working hypothesis is that the mechanized propaganda efforts are working. I believe the Russians are the leaders, but I'm not sure why they would care so much on this issue. Even if the risk of detection is low, the possible benefits seems too far away to justify the effort. Yeah, tropical Siberia would be great for them, but it might not work out that way (unless they are also leading in climate modeling). In contrast, the extractionists certainly have short-term concerns that could justify their propaganda investments, even if they aren't as good at it as the Russians are.

There would be a much shorter term reason for Russia to support climate change denial, they export a lot of natural gas to Europe. The less Europe depends on fossil fuels, the less influence and power Russia can exert on Europe.

Comment Re:No red lines [Re: No complaints here] (Score 1) 364

1.) Scientists predicted in 2000 that kids would grow up without snow.
2.) It’s been 10 years since scientists predicted the “end of skiing” in Scotland.
3.) The Arctic would be “ice-free” by now
4.) Environmentalists predicted the end of spring snowfall

SOURCE ? link to scientific journal please ?

He can't do that, because the above points are copy-pasta of half-truths:

  • 1) In an Independent article the author says that snow is a thing of the past, and that he quotes some scientists who say that if global warming continues snow will become a rare occurrence. No dates attached to the scientist's predictions.
  • 2) In a Guardian UK article in 2004, unnamed "experts" predicted that the Scottish ski industry had about 20 years left before it died. For the math challenged, that prediction won't be testable for another 7 years. The article points to some short-term trends that showed fewer ski days and fewer ski tickets. The article that the claims were copied from claims since there was a lot of snow this year, the Scottish Ski industry is saved forever.
  • 3) This is one based off of something that Al Gore said, which was "Some of the models suggest to Dr Maslowski that there is a 75% chance that the entire North polar ice cap, during summer, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice free within the next 5-7 years." There's a lot of qualifiers in there that get skipped when skeptics read that, they tend to ignore "Some of the models" and "75% chance" and claim that Al Gore said all the Artic would be ice free in 5 years. I'm pretty sure Dr. Maslowski further hedged his bet by prefacing it with "if the current trend continues", but what was actually said is less important than claiming it's wrong.
  • 4) This one is references a Union of Concerned Scientists press release, which notes that we have been getting less snow in spring over the last decade and then talks about the kinds of environmental impacts those changes have. The article the claims were copied from notes that there was a record breaking snowstorm this year as a refutation of the entire press release.

Comment Re:What's the plan, Stan? (Score 1) 201

Moreover, I'd like to have all the extremist argumentation slapped the fuck down by intellectuals in public. Given the way things are going however, it's as though transparency and public discussion were anathema to those with power to censor.

After all, it's worked so well on Slashdot, right? That's why we never have arguments over whether or not Climate Change is real any more. Once the bous arguments of the climate change denying posters were shown to be based on false claims and conspiracy theories, all of the anti-climate change posters recanted their positions are accepted the truth, right?

I think the problem is that people don't actually behave the way you think they should, when intellectuals slap down extremists in public, people who agree with the extremists tend to become more extreme, not less. Evidence and reason won't work on most people unless the source of the evidence and reason is considered "one of us", and sometimes a position is so fundamental to some people's identity that merely questioning it is enough to make the questioner automatically "one of them" and thus not to be listened to or trusted. Add to that the fact that it may take between 3 and 6 months for someone to change their mind on an important topic and it seems that slapping down arguments on twitter lies somewhere between counter-productive and ineffectual.

Comment Re:British "free speech" norms (Score 1) 70

In Britain, apparently quoting the Bible [telegraph.co.uk] can get you locked up for a [hate] crime.

I read that and immediately said "Bullshit!" and I was right. He was arrested for abusive behaviour and assault, not for quoting the Bible. You should try actually being honest instead of peddling lies.

Comment Re:Free Press? (Score 1) 529

What "Free Press"? are you referring to? The "Free Press" that did everything in their power to get Trump elected, because as we found out later the Democrats believed he would be the easiest for Hillary to beat? The one that colluded with the DNC to install a particular person to the highest office in the land after the two Primaries? The one that continues to collude to disrupt the current President? The painfully obvious slander and hit jobs by CNN and MSNBC colluding with (and repeating the stories of) NYT, WP, etc..? That "Free Press"?

The "Free" press has been dead for quite a while. We were put on notice by journalists when the monopolization was legalized (previously restricted by law).

I believe it would be more apt to say that Trump wanted to attack an openly corrupt media establishment. A whole lot of people agree with him, and of course the owners of that powerful block of corruption are doing all they can to maintain power and control.

Do you even know what a "free press" is? Judging from your diatribe, you simply haven't got a clue.

Comment Re:Scary stuff (Score 1) 279

It's been done. By statisticians, by physicists, by chemists, by people with decades of experience making models that are tested against reality.

That would be amazing, if it were true. There have been a few valid criticisms of the Hockey Stick graph, but the anti-climate change media have consistently exaggerated the size of the scope of the criticisms, and the criticisms were addressed. When the problems were fixed, the results were slightly different but basically the same. As I previously said the Hockey stick has been replicated at least 26 times by different authors, with different methods and different data. You, on the other hand, tried to hand wave away the peer reviewed, replicated science because you don't like the conclusion.

People who dispute the narrative are attacked and smeared.

So are the people who uphold the narrative, or are you only counting attacks on "your side"?

Their arguments are largely ignored while the whole climate establishment and their friendly media go into a frenzy searching for dirt on the heretic.

Actually, regardless of what the media or the public says about them, their arguments are actually examined and incorporated into the science, if they have validity. That's why Michael Mann has updated his Hockey Stick each time valid criticism has been offered. For example he changed the methods used when the methods were shown to have introduced a bias into the graph, and when the argument was made that the tree ring data wasn't robust enough to support the conclusions, he removed the tree ring data, and used different proxies instead and got the same result.

There is no fucking science here. There is no honesty, no humility.

What is this if not, "ignoring their arguments" and "attacking and smearing" the people you disagree with. But I'm sure that it's perfectly fine when you do it, right?

These are not people eager to gain a better understanding of reality by hearing about their mistakes.

Very few people are, however, the people you criticize have repeated demonstrated that they actually do act where there is real evidence that they've made a mistake. I doubt you can say the same.

Slashdot Top Deals

Take an astronaut to launch.