×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Climate Scientist: Climate Engineering Might Be the Answer To Warming

KeensMustard Re:Wrong catastrophe (338 comments)

By AGW supporters, you mean your friendly denialists, right? After all, only members of that group claim that global warming will actually be good for our species => they are the only people who could validly be called "AGW supporters".

2 days ago
top

Climate Scientist: Climate Engineering Might Be the Answer To Warming

KeensMustard Re:I told you so (338 comments)

If anthropogenic global warming is not only real but as apocalyptic as its proponents claim,

By AGW proponent, you mean yourself, right? Denialists who argue that global warming will be good for our species (what with us all becoming russian and that) are the only people who could be accurately termed "AGW proponent".

To put it another way: the greenhouse effect, if it is actually happening, is already a form of geoengineering. It is making cold countries warm. If it's going too far, the geoengineering steps in this article are what it might take to arrive at the stable, human-based optimum we want for our long-term survival.

Perhaps. But if you AGW proponents/denialists are scared of the amount of money needed to replace aging coal fired power plants with more efficient technologies, you'll quake in your boots when you see THAT bill.

2 days ago
top

Climate Scientist: Climate Engineering Might Be the Answer To Warming

KeensMustard Re:I told you so (338 comments)

By AGW proponent, you mean yourself, right? Denialists who argue that glonbal warming will be good for our species (what with us all becoming russian and that) are the only people who could be accurately termed "AGW proponent".

2 days ago
top

Climate Scientist: Climate Engineering Might Be the Answer To Warming

KeensMustard Re:I am against any climate engineering (338 comments)

We don't need consensus. There's a body a science which says it is caused by humans, and no body of evidence that says it isn't. You can play a piano and sing "Feelings" as loud and as tunelessly as you like. Nothing your feelings tell you will change reality.

2 days ago
top

Russia Wants To Establish a Permanent Moon Base

KeensMustard Re:Talk is cheap (312 comments)

?? Is there a particular reason to lob bags of meat into space?

2 days ago
top

Australia Declares Homeopathy Nonsense, Urges Doctors to Inform Patients

KeensMustard Re:The spokesman for the AHA said... (408 comments)

Oh come on, can't you recognize when someone's just trying to get a rise out of you.

Being trolled isn't something I expect to happen in a conversation of this sort, no. I notice that some people have modded you 'insightful' so obviously your trolling was either not obvious to them, or it's okay to broadly denigrate a large group of people here on Slashdot by posting untruths. Because it's fun?

3 days ago
top

Study Rules Out Global Warming Being a Natural Fluctuation With 99% Certainty

KeensMustard Re:Why so much resistance to climate science? (844 comments)

So - no.1 is the argument that you propose as "the truth"?

Percentage is a perfectly valid way of measuring CO2. Anyone with any understanding of math can convert it to PPM at will. Scientists can operate perfectly well with either number, and will use whichever is most convenient at the moment.

I'll take that as a yes.

If indeed, you already understood that

(a) the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was only 270ppm prior to the industrial age and 400ppm now and

(b) this represents a percentage increase on baseline of 48% and

(c) since you yourself can calculate the concentration in CO2 as a percentage (0.007%) and

(d) You readily accept that CO2 contributes some 25% of the total geenhouse effect (30 degrees c)

How is it that you can claim It's hard to believe such a small change could make any noticeable difference at all, and I've heard people say AGW is impossible because it is so small, just like you are saying it's obvious because it's so big.? Are you incompetent? Are you being a little dishonest?

3 days ago
top

Study Rules Out Global Warming Being a Natural Fluctuation With 99% Certainty

KeensMustard Re:Why so much resistance to climate science? (844 comments)

Lovely. Truthiness. Which of these things then, is the truth? 1. CO2 concentration is measured in ppm and always has been since the days of Fourier/Tyndall.

I honestly hope you one day discover how silly you are for posting this. I hope when you figure it out, you are wildly entertained.

So - no.1 is the argument that you propose as "the truth"?

4 days ago
top

Study Rules Out Global Warming Being a Natural Fluctuation With 99% Certainty

KeensMustard Re:Why so much resistance to climate science? (844 comments)

Lovely. Truthiness. Which of these things then, is the truth?

1. CO2 concentration is measured in ppm and always has been since the days of Fourier/Tyndall.

2. It's "hard to believe" that adding millions of tons of CO2 and measurably raising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere would lead to climate change.

4 days ago
top

Study Rules Out Global Warming Being a Natural Fluctuation With 99% Certainty

KeensMustard Re:Why so much resistance to climate science? (844 comments)

Well, you post a lot of contradictory material, I chose a position that wove through it. Don't like it, don't claim several contradictory things at once.

4 days ago
top

Study Rules Out Global Warming Being a Natural Fluctuation With 99% Certainty

KeensMustard Re:Why so much resistance to climate science? (844 comments)

And they're / we're doing that because all of the global warming extremists want to wreck prosperity in pursuing actions that will not work.

You are basically admitting that the contrarian case is denial. "We don't like the consequences of anthropogenic cliamte change, so we'll pretend that there is a problem with the science".

Why don't you come out and say it: climate change is real, but you don't want to do anything about it. If you think you position is defensible, why not state it in the clear? What are you afraid of?

If you _ever_ outline a course of action that will _increase_ prosperity and solve the problem at the same time, then you MIGHT have a chance of getting the plan approved by all.

If you think the current plan doesn't work, the most helpful thing to do would be for you to suggest a plan that does.

And we don't need the plan to be approved by you. To a limited extent, some discussion can be entered into around phasing in alternate energy sources, although why anybody would want to keep coal plants is beyond me, I guess they support the buggy whip manufacturers. However, you have removed yourself from the table by disputing the science. This is an absurdity - nobody is going to negotiate for a new 'mutually acceptable' view of the science. It is what it is, you don't vote on it.

4 days ago
top

Study Rules Out Global Warming Being a Natural Fluctuation With 99% Certainty

KeensMustard Re:Why so much resistance to climate science? (844 comments)

and I've heard people say AGW is impossible because it is so small

I assume you challenged those people to learn some mathematics? Hint: CO2 levels are measured in ppm (that is parts per million).

4 days ago
top

Study Rules Out Global Warming Being a Natural Fluctuation With 99% Certainty

KeensMustard Re:Why so much resistance to climate science? (844 comments)

Since when were you in the habit of making arguments for anthropogenic climate change? Wonders will never cease.

4 days ago
top

Australia Declares Homeopathy Nonsense, Urges Doctors to Inform Patients

KeensMustard Re:The spokesman for the AHA said... (408 comments)

Who said they were the crazy ones. Hint: it's you. Your [sic] the crazy one. Not them.

... I'll bear that in mind.

And I'm really sorry you're wrong, and believe in something with no credible justification. Don't take it out on me.

And what, exactly, is this thing that I believe without justification

about a week ago
top

Australia Declares Homeopathy Nonsense, Urges Doctors to Inform Patients

KeensMustard Re:The spokesman for the AHA said... (408 comments)

No, I specifically meant through that parenthetical remark that it would draw a different brand of crazies out of the woodwork.

You parenthetical remark asked a question which wasn't rhetorical unless the listener is ignorant and naive enough to accept without question that pastors or people who firmly believe in a deity are crazy. Assuming your audience is naive is a mistake.

As far as why I used it, it's perfectly valid to compare various unjustified beliefs, and note the behaviors those that distribute and profit from them.

By doing so you draw attention to your own unjustified beliefs.

Except in that religion is treated with more respect by deference to it's claimed state of "the most important thing" to believers.

I'd guess from the outset that you've incorrectly drawn the bounds of what comprises "religion" so your statement is pretty meaningless outside the bound of your own blinkered worldview.

about a week ago
top

U.S. Supreme Court Declines To Rule On Constitutionality of Bulk Surveillance

KeensMustard Re:We do both... (141 comments)

You aren't doing any of those things.

In many other democracies, similar provocations from the government would have the people out on the street in mass protest. Why is this not happening in the US? I think the problem is people who lay claim to some violent overthrow of the government. Perhaps they do it inadvertently, perhaps encouraging compliance with the regime is intentional. But whatever the motivation:

(a) Claiming that legal access to small arms makes the US somehow exceptional as a democracy and strengthens the democratic process is nonsense. If the need for violent overthrow comes to pass, the legality of your gun is not really a headline issue.

(b) Most people, including most americans, aren't going to side with violent revolution unless the situation becomes dire. When faced with joining a violent revolution and killing their friends, the children of their friends, destroying the economy, promoting the interests of violent radicals, they will judge that a slightly less democratic government is a favorable option. And fair enough. So the group who constantly advocate for violent revolution ignore the fact that power is removed from the people by increments, not all at once. By constantly laying claim to some non-democratic means of restoring democracy, they dissipate the anger needed to get people on their feet to act.

about a week ago
top

NASA Laying Foundation For Jupiter Moon Space Mission

KeensMustard Re:Permanent Habitat? (100 comments)

Yes - lot's of things suddenly become trivial if you assume magic.

about a week ago

Submissions

Journals

KeensMustard has no journal entries.

Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...