Who cares what idiot left green-types think? Mainline liberals, notably the Obama administration, are in favor of nuclear. Perhaps more education about newer types of nuclear plants could help assuage fears of nuclear power. I don't think calling a group of people idiots is going to bring them around to your way of thinking.
Then why don't Republicans propose a tax on fossil fuels, and a tax on imports from countries that import fossil fuels? Then there's no need for liberals to take control of the situation. If you have a better way to reduce our usage of fossil fuels without statist central command types running our lives, let's have it!
There's a natural carbon cycle that gets plants their food. No one is suggesting interfering with that cycle. I'm discussing burning fewer fossil fuels so we don't add more carbon into that cycle. Believe me, no plants will die if we stop burning shit. If you think so, how do you think they survived the many millions of years before humans existed?
How can we reduce the amount of fossil fuels we burn without socialists running the planet? I don't think this is a hard question.
Ah, finally the real objection to believing in AGW comes to light... you're afraid of your political opponents gaining power. But just for a moment consider that we may need to actually reduce carbon dioxide emissions for legitimate reasons. Can you think of a way that we could do that without the commie pinkos taking over? Let's get creative.
Yeah, like string theory. Currently, there's no evidence to support string theory, so we don't use it in engineering calculations. We do use Newtonian physics, relativity, and quantum mechanics, because those theories have lots of evidence to support them. Only highly theoretical physicists take string theory seriously (or really consider it at all), and they all realize it could be completely wrong. That's why they're attempting to devise experiments to test it.
I'm sure there's plenty of climatology research to do without considering greenhouse gases at all. It was a serious field of study long before the idea that burning fossil fuels could lead to warming was widely accepted. It's as if you're claiming that astronomy would fall apart if we developed an asteroid shield, or that geology would fall apart if we could stop earthquakes, or that meteorology would fall apart if we could prevent hurricanes.
I said nothing about whether science is or is not corrupt. In either case, when public opinion (or popularity) in science changes, it is due to evidence. Mere innuendo will not change popular opinion -- only solid evidence will do it. It may take some time, as in the cases of tectonic plate theory or H. pylori causing ulcers, but in the end it's the evidence that changed hearts and minds, not mere rhetoric.
Do you really think the entire field of climatology would collapse if AGW were not a threat? I would also think that if there was some good evidence that AGW is not happening that the researcher who provided the evidence would get lots of fame and funding. If politicians wanted to convince the general populace of something, why would they bother paying thousands of scientists worldwide? I don't think the conspiracy theories fly, especially because it would rely on making sure that none of the thousands in on it would blow the whistle. If AGW isn't happening, then only one person need provide the evidence.
Do you have some evidence that journals are trying to silence climate skeptics? Don't journals publish papers from well-known skeptics such as Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer? If there actually was some sort of conspiracy, I think a skeptic that had good evidence would be able to simply put his papers on the web for all to see, yet I never see any posts pointing me to an article such as that.
What you're missing is that it's evidence that results in changing the accepted scientific view. If you want to claim an accepted scientific view is incorrect, simply show the evidence. A snarky remark just won't cut it. Sorry.
Dealing with global warming requires change... in this case using forms of energy other than fossil fuels. And people are scared by change, so they try to deny that they need to change to make themselves feel comfortable. In this state, they simply cannot be calm and rational, because they feel threatened by the impending change. They lash out and cling onto any excuse they can, no matter how flimsy. It called denialism. As you point out, it's clearly demonstrated with just about any Slashdot story that mentions the weather these days. It just shows how terrified some people are of the change.
I think you're referring to the temperature escalator. It's a method of cherry picking data to show a short-term cooling trend even though the long-term trend is warming. In this case, you're ignoring all data before 1998, which was the year an unusually strong El Nino produced warm weather.
Exactly. Tax fuels according to how much carbon they contain, and tax imports according to how much fossil fuels the nations they come from emit. Then the free market will do the rest: develop more energy sources that don't emit carbon dioxide and produce more energy efficient products.
Exactly. That's why "we can't blame climate change for any one event". You need to look at the overall, long-term trend to see what the overall, long-term trend is, such as: "The report, which will be released in full in February, finds that climate change is having a key influence on a trend that has seen the number of hot days in Australia double and the duration and frequency of heatwaves increase in the period between 1971 and 2008." If you graph the temperatures in Australia over many decades, you can easily see the warming trend.
Of course it's falsifiable. If we saw new species being created that were genetically quite unlike anything else we've every seen, that would falsify the idea that new species gradually evolve. But whenever we observe the changes between generations of organisms, we find that there are a relative handful of mutations which appear to be random, as the theory of evolution predicts.
I'm not aware of any scientific (falsifiable) explanation for how species came to be the way they are other than evolution. Also, the book states as fact that God created the world. It's obviously introducing religion into a science textbook, which is completely different from describing competing alternative scientific hypotheses.
The patent isn't on the mere idea of blue LEDs, but on how precisely to make a particlar blue LED, which was not obvious. Mere ideas cannot be patented, contrary to what many Slashdot posters would like you to believe.
Slashdot Mirror
Who cares what idiot left green-types think? Mainline liberals, notably the Obama administration, are in favor of nuclear. Perhaps more education about newer types of nuclear plants could help assuage fears of nuclear power. I don't think calling a group of people idiots is going to bring them around to your way of thinking.
Then why don't Republicans propose a tax on fossil fuels, and a tax on imports from countries that import fossil fuels? Then there's no need for liberals to take control of the situation. If you have a better way to reduce our usage of fossil fuels without statist central command types running our lives, let's have it!
There's a natural carbon cycle that gets plants their food. No one is suggesting interfering with that cycle. I'm discussing burning fewer fossil fuels so we don't add more carbon into that cycle. Believe me, no plants will die if we stop burning shit. If you think so, how do you think they survived the many millions of years before humans existed?
How can we reduce the amount of fossil fuels we burn without socialists running the planet? I don't think this is a hard question.
Ah, finally the real objection to believing in AGW comes to light... you're afraid of your political opponents gaining power. But just for a moment consider that we may need to actually reduce carbon dioxide emissions for legitimate reasons. Can you think of a way that we could do that without the commie pinkos taking over? Let's get creative.
Browser code for reloading a page... mostly on Slashdot. No, really, how about an inner loop of a Windows screensaver?
How is that unscientific? Warming caused by excess CO2 in the atmosphere was predicted long before it was ever observed. Isn't that the scientific method, coming up with a hypothesis that makes predictions, then testing the predictions against observations? If we had not observed the warming, you'd have a point, but we've seen not only warming, but also melting ice and sea level rise.
http://cpo.noaa.gov/warmingworld/
Care to give some examples of when this has happened in the past?
Yeah, like string theory. Currently, there's no evidence to support string theory, so we don't use it in engineering calculations. We do use Newtonian physics, relativity, and quantum mechanics, because those theories have lots of evidence to support them. Only highly theoretical physicists take string theory seriously (or really consider it at all), and they all realize it could be completely wrong. That's why they're attempting to devise experiments to test it.
I'm sure there's plenty of climatology research to do without considering greenhouse gases at all. It was a serious field of study long before the idea that burning fossil fuels could lead to warming was widely accepted. It's as if you're claiming that astronomy would fall apart if we developed an asteroid shield, or that geology would fall apart if we could stop earthquakes, or that meteorology would fall apart if we could prevent hurricanes.
I said nothing about whether science is or is not corrupt. In either case, when public opinion (or popularity) in science changes, it is due to evidence. Mere innuendo will not change popular opinion -- only solid evidence will do it. It may take some time, as in the cases of tectonic plate theory or H. pylori causing ulcers, but in the end it's the evidence that changed hearts and minds, not mere rhetoric.
Do you really think the entire field of climatology would collapse if AGW were not a threat? I would also think that if there was some good evidence that AGW is not happening that the researcher who provided the evidence would get lots of fame and funding. If politicians wanted to convince the general populace of something, why would they bother paying thousands of scientists worldwide? I don't think the conspiracy theories fly, especially because it would rely on making sure that none of the thousands in on it would blow the whistle. If AGW isn't happening, then only one person need provide the evidence.
Do you have some evidence that journals are trying to silence climate skeptics? Don't journals publish papers from well-known skeptics such as Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer? If there actually was some sort of conspiracy, I think a skeptic that had good evidence would be able to simply put his papers on the web for all to see, yet I never see any posts pointing me to an article such as that.
What you're missing is that it's evidence that results in changing the accepted scientific view. If you want to claim an accepted scientific view is incorrect, simply show the evidence. A snarky remark just won't cut it. Sorry.
Dealing with global warming requires change... in this case using forms of energy other than fossil fuels. And people are scared by change, so they try to deny that they need to change to make themselves feel comfortable. In this state, they simply cannot be calm and rational, because they feel threatened by the impending change. They lash out and cling onto any excuse they can, no matter how flimsy. It called denialism. As you point out, it's clearly demonstrated with just about any Slashdot story that mentions the weather these days. It just shows how terrified some people are of the change.
I think you're referring to the temperature escalator. It's a method of cherry picking data to show a short-term cooling trend even though the long-term trend is warming. In this case, you're ignoring all data before 1998, which was the year an unusually strong El Nino produced warm weather.
Perhaps you can post the data you're referring to. Never underestimate the power of producing evidence to back up your claims.
The ship got stuck in sea ice that broke off the continent because it's melting due to the warming.
Exactly. Tax fuels according to how much carbon they contain, and tax imports according to how much fossil fuels the nations they come from emit. Then the free market will do the rest: develop more energy sources that don't emit carbon dioxide and produce more energy efficient products.
Exactly. That's why "we can't blame climate change for any one event". You need to look at the overall, long-term trend to see what the overall, long-term trend is, such as: "The report, which will be released in full in February, finds that climate change is having a key influence on a trend that has seen the number of hot days in Australia double and the duration and frequency of heatwaves increase in the period between 1971 and 2008." If you graph the temperatures in Australia over many decades, you can easily see the warming trend.
Likewise, I think many people who argue against climate change also want to preserve life as they know it. Change is scary.
Of course it's falsifiable. If we saw new species being created that were genetically quite unlike anything else we've every seen, that would falsify the idea that new species gradually evolve. But whenever we observe the changes between generations of organisms, we find that there are a relative handful of mutations which appear to be random, as the theory of evolution predicts.
I'm not aware of any scientific (falsifiable) explanation for how species came to be the way they are other than evolution. Also, the book states as fact that God created the world. It's obviously introducing religion into a science textbook, which is completely different from describing competing alternative scientific hypotheses.
That style of argumentation is called denialism.
The patent isn't on the mere idea of blue LEDs, but on how precisely to make a particlar blue LED, which was not obvious. Mere ideas cannot be patented, contrary to what many Slashdot posters would like you to believe.