Beta
×

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!

Talking To the Public: the Biggest Enemy To Reducing Greenhouse Emissions

Soulskill posted about 4 months ago | from the none-of-us-are-as-dumb-as-all-of-us dept.

Earth 324

Lasrick writes: "Lucien Crowder is fed up with the notion that solutions for climate change would be easier to enact if only the public (especially the American public) understood the science better. Crowder looks to nuclear disarmament advocates as a model, as the move to reduce nuclear weapons has seen comparatively greater success even without public awareness and understanding: 'Indeed, in the nuclear and climate realms, desirable policy often seems to flow less from public engagement than from public obliviousness. Disarmament advocates, no matter how they try, cannot tempt most ordinary people into caring about nuclear weapons—yet stockpiles of weapons steadily, if still too slowly, decrease. Climate advocacy provokes greater passion, but passion often manifests itself as outraged opposition to climate action, and atmospheric carbon has reached levels unseen since before human beings evolved.'"

cancel ×

324 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Estimates 1000x off on fracking methane (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46902259)

Methane, much more insulating than C02 per pound, released at rates THOUSANDS of times higher than industry-regulators "estimated" for fracking sites.

That's probably a good mistake not to make.

Re:Estimates 1000x off on fracking methane (1)

Nimey (114278) | about 4 months ago | (#46902319)

Cite?

Re:Estimates 1000x off on fracking methane (-1, Troll)

sexconker (1179573) | about 4 months ago | (#46902457)

www.google.com
www.bing.com

Try?

Re:Estimates 1000x off on fracking methane (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46902529)

www.google.com just has this blank site with a text box, I don't see anything about fracking there.

Re:Estimates 1000x off on fracking methane (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 4 months ago | (#46902543)

At least www.bing.com has a nice background photo of Ned Ryerson.

Re:Estimates 1000x off on fracking methane (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46902533)

In other words, citation fucking needed.

Re:Estimates 1000x off on fracking methane (-1, Flamebait)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 4 months ago | (#46902531)

Methane, much more insulating than C02 per pound, released at rates THOUSANDS of times higher than industry-regulators "estimated" for fracking sites.

Pardon me, but the ideology of "Anthropogenic CO2-caused Global Warming" is not based on the "insulation" properties of CO2. Instead it is based on a physics-challenged notion of "trapping radiation", which is not how thermal insulation works.

Re:Estimates 1000x off on fracking methane (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46902663)

If CO2 traps radiation why is the venus temperature at 1 atm pressure 1.176 that of earth at the same pressure? The difference in CO2 is drastic, but the difference in temperature at the same pressures appears to be due to distance from the sun.

Re:Estimates 1000x off on fracking methane (1)

whistlingtony (691548) | about 4 months ago | (#46902723)

So.... We're getting closer to the sun?! Shit!

Re:Estimates 1000x off on fracking methane (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46902757)

Or the density of the atmosphere is increasing, or the sun has been warmer.

Re:Estimates 1000x off on fracking methane (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46902703)

Pardon me, but the ideology of "Anthropogenic CO2-caused Global Warming" is not based on the "insulation" properties of CO2. Instead it is based on a physics-challenged notion of "trapping radiation", which is not how thermal insulation works.

Pardon me, but the ideology of deniers is based on trying to debate things they know nothing about.

Next, let's debate whether gravity exists or it is actually electric! Why isn't this revelation taught from the rooftops? Where is the balance in the discussion?

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/... [holoscience.com]

http://blackholeformulas.com/f... [blackholeformulas.com]

http://arxiv.org/html/physics/... [arxiv.org]

PS. Yes, I'm sarcastic.

Re:Estimates 1000x off on fracking methane (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46902871)

"but the ideology of deniers is based on trying to debate things they know nothing about"

Very convienient thing for you to say. I say bullshit. Repeatable demonstrable proof. When I see it I will be convinced. Saying "neener neener" won't cut it.

Science, how does it work?

Re:Estimates 1000x off on fracking methane (4, Informative)

mbkennel (97636) | about 4 months ago | (#46902765)


The actual physics of Anthropogenic Global Warming (of which anthropogenic CO2 is one but not an exclusive component, and no scare quotes needed as it is fact) is based upon the infrared emissivity of gases and their actual dynamics and concentration in the atmosphere.

This physics is lab validated and confirmed by in-situ objective measurements.

Analogies made to the lay public are imprecise, but the underlying science never was.

Re:Estimates 1000x off on fracking methane (1, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 4 months ago | (#46902879)

The actual physics of Anthropogenic Global Warming (of which anthropogenic CO2 is one but not an exclusive component, and no scare quotes needed as it is fact) is based upon the infrared emissivity of gases and their actual dynamics and concentration in the atmosphere.

They aren't "scare quotes". They're simply quotes. I use them because I am quoting others, not making the statement myself, as is quite proper. You might be scared of them but I am not.

As for the physics of the concept, I am intimately familiar with them (see my later explanation), and it does not involve "insulation".

Analogies made to the lay public are imprecise, but the underlying science never was.

Tell that to Spencer. You might call "insulation" a lay explanation, but that's disingenuous. A lay explanation is supposed to explain, not to replace actual physics with falsehood, no matter how simple.

Re:Estimates 1000x off on fracking methane (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about 4 months ago | (#46902771)

Pardon me, but the ideology of "Anthropogenic CO2-caused Global Warming" is not based on the "insulation" properties of CO2. Instead it is based on a physics-challenged notion of "trapping radiation", which is not how thermal insulation works.

I should also point out that sucking really isn't sucking. Air is not being "sucked" instead the creation of a vacuum causes surrounding air to expand out filling the pressure gradient.

Re:Estimates 1000x off on fracking methane (2, Interesting)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 4 months ago | (#46902819)

To clarify:

This is the fundamental problem that occurs when people who speak of warming (like Dr. Roy Spencer) compare CO2 to "insulation": thermal insulation actually works on a completely different principle than the claimed "greenhouse effect".

The idea of "the greenhouse effect" is based on the concept of trapping outgoing radiation. And this is where a lot of confusion occurs, because that's not how actual greenhouses work.

A real greenhouse work this way: sunlight enters and warms things inside. Those things (plants, dirt, the ground, etc.) in turn warm the air via conduction. Then that warmed air is prevented by carrying that hot air away (via convection, you know, like in a convection oven) by the glass walls of the greenhouse. Therefore all the heat (minus losses via conduction through the glass walls) is trapped inside.

The way you cool off a greenhouse is by letting the hot air escape, not by using a different wall material that "lets out the infrared". Because in fact greenhouses that use such material (like acrylic for example) work just fine. My sister has one.

The "radiative trapping" effects of greenhouse walls has somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.000000 effect on the heat inside. We know from real observation... it has been measured innumerable times over the last few hundred years.

So... the point here is that the concept of "the greenhouse effect" doesn't work like real greenhouses. Okay so far?

As it turns out though, regular thermal insulation DOES work in a way similar to real greenhouses. It prevents loss of heat via conduction and convection, by limiting both.

As counterintuitive as it may seem, that has little to nothing to do with radiation.

So anyway, back to my main point: it is not the "insulation" properties of CO2 that are purported to cause "greenhouse warming". The whole "greenhouse" label is a misnomer that arose for historical reasons. It has nothing to do with either insulation or greenhouses.

Re:Estimates 1000x off on fracking methane (1)

microbox (704317) | about 4 months ago | (#46902761)

Methane's time course is about 2 years. CO2 lasts for 1000s of years. That makes is a much worse problem.

Hairy Reed - Gas Producer (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46902265)

Speaking of elite lying Democrats, How Did Harry Reid Get Rich?

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/314025/how-did-harry-reid-get-rich-betsy-woodruff

"When Harry Reid entered the Nevada legislature in 1982, his net worth was listed as between $1 million and $1.5 million “or more,” according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. So, since inquiring minds inquire, let’s try to figure out how Reid’s career in public service ended up being so lucrative. He hasn’t released his tax returns, which makes this an imperfect science, but looking at a few of his investments helps to show how he amassed his wealth.

In 2004, the senator made $700,000 off a land deal that was, to say the least, unorthodox. It started in 1998 when he bought a parcel of land with attorney Jay Brown, a close friend whose name has surfaced multiple times in organized-crime investigations and whom one retired FBI agent described as “always a person of interest.” Three years after the purchase, Reid transferred his portion of the property to Patrick Lane LLC, a holding company Brown controlled. But Reid kept putting the property on his financial disclosures, and when the company sold it in 2004, he profited from the deal — a deal on land that he didn’t technically own and that had nearly tripled in value in six years.

When his 2010 challenger Sharron Angle asked him in a debate how he had become so wealthy, he said, “I did a very good job investing.” Did he ever. On December 20, 2005, he invested $50,000 to $100,000 in the Dow Jones U.S. Energy Sector Fund (IYE), which closed that day at $29.15. The companies whose shares it held included ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, and ConocoPhillips. When he made a partial sale of his shares on August 19, 2008, during congressional recess, IYE closed at $41.82. Just a month later, on September 17, Reid was working to bring to the floor a bill that the Joint Committee on Taxation said would cost oil companies — including those in the fund — billions of dollars in taxes and regulatory fees. The bill passed a few days later, and by October 10, IYE’s shares had fallen by 42 percent, to $24.41, for a host of reasons. Savvy investing indeed.

Here’s another example: The Los Angeles Times reported in November 2006 that when Reid became Senate majority leader he committed to making earmark reform a priority, saying he’d work to keep congressmen from using federal dollars for pet projects in their districts. It was a good idea but an odd one for the senator to espouse. He had managed to get $18 million set aside to build a bridge across the Colorado River between Laughlin, Nev., and Bullhead City, Ariz., a project that wasn’t a priority for either state’s transportation agency. His ownership of 160 acres of land nearby that stood to appreciate considerably from the project had nothing to do with the decision, according to one of his aides. The property’s value has varied since then. On his financial-disclosure forms from 2006, it was valued at $250,000 to $500,000. Open Secrets now lists it as his most valuable asset, worth $1 million to $5 million as of 2010."

Must be nice to not have to follow the rules us little people have to follow, to be rich and powerful and to continually rail on and on about how we need to raise taxes to take from the rich (except Harry Reed) and give to the poor (after taking our cut, which is like most of it anyway).

And fess up you internet assholes, how many of you support the Democrats? How many of you support crony capitalism, keeping your boot on the throat of the american people, stifling freedom and liberty all the while chomping down on $100 grilled cheese sandwiches, ourselves and our families protected by men with guns and an immunity to the law, while at the same time using the law in arbitrary ways to defeat opponents, ridicule the Tea Party and tax the people ever more and more and more?

Must be nice to be a king.

Re:Hairy Reed - Gas Producer (2, Insightful)

Nimey (114278) | about 4 months ago | (#46902307)

Shorter AC: I don't like the science or its implications, so I'll attack the man instead and thus derail the discussion. At least it's not yet another anti-Al Gore screed.

Re:Hairy Reed - Gas Producer (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46902435)

My breath smells like breath. Is that a turtle in your pocket? I got a nickel shiny and new. Who doesn't love pie? Look, a flying squirrel! I feel like I have to go doo doo.

Um, what was the question again?

Posted by: Joey Plugs Biden

Re:Hairy Reed - Gas Producer (5, Insightful)

dlt074 (548126) | about 4 months ago | (#46902443)

well, when deniers talk the science, the believers go into "burn the heretics at the stake" mode. it's hard to have an honest debate with people who have drank the kool-aid. so, when dealing with cults/religions i think it's valid to point out the hypocrisy of the cults leaders. it's also important to show why they want you to believe what they're selling. it's probably not for the greater good, it's most likely to gain more control and power.

it's always about control and power.

this heretic is ready, mod me down.

Re:Hairy Reed - Gas Producer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46902737)

You mean like Al Gore heating/cooling a 2 bazillion square foot mansion? Flitting back and forth across the globe in a fossil fuel powered jet? That kind of hypocrisy?

I find it a little more telling how those who believe in the rising of the sea levels mostly live in big cities. These big cities are on the coasts.

I say they move, or they are full of shit and don't believe their own lies.

Move, or I'm not listening.

Re:Hairy Reed - Gas Producer (3, Insightful)

microbox (704317) | about 4 months ago | (#46902783)

"Skeptics" talking science is like listening to New Agers go on about the quantum theory of consciousness. They both think the science is on their side. Both have a few crank scientists who support their cause. The vast majority of scientists just shake their heads and get back to work.

Re:Hairy Reed - Gas Producer (1)

mbkennel (97636) | about 4 months ago | (#46902793)


| well, when deniers talk the science, the believers go into "burn the heretics at the stake" mode.

When deniers lie about the science, the believers in science go into "you are an ignorant idiot and ought to STFU and everybody should ignore your drivel" mode, as they ought to, because the future of technological civilization may be at risk from aggravated ignorance.

Re:Hairy Reed - Gas Producer (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46902815)

well, when deniers talk the science,

The thing is, deniers don't talk the science.

when dealing with cults/religions i think it's valid to point out the hypocrisy of the cults leaders

Absolutely. Oh, one thing though: science is not a cult.

this heretic is ready, mod me down.

No you're not. You need to get some science first, then come back and present it.

Re:Hairy Reed - Gas Producer (2)

nbauman (624611) | about 4 months ago | (#46902839)

well, when deniers talk the science, the believers go into "burn the heretics at the stake" mode. it's hard to have an honest debate with people who have drank the kool-aid.

I read Science and New Scientist. I don't have any problem getting the facts.

The New Scientist once did a story about the respectable scientists with good credentials who didn't believe the standard version of global warming. The arguments were fairly technical and the New Scientist gave them a good hearing. Since that time a few of them were finally convinced of global warming.

Maybe you're reading the wrong magazines.

Re:Hairy Reed - Gas Producer (2)

nbauman (624611) | about 4 months ago | (#46902791)

Speaking of elite lying Democrats, How Did Harry Reid Get Rich?

Oh, same way the Republicans got rich.

Apples, Oranges and Herrings (4, Insightful)

just_another_sean (919159) | about 4 months ago | (#46902271)

I'm not sure that's a very good comparison. Nuclear disarmament is not perceived as effecting people in their daily lives. That's why most average people can't be arsed to give a care.

In order to enact meaningful carbon reduction legislation things have to change for everyone. Things will get more expensive or need to be rationed. People will feel put upon by these regulations. They will be effected by whatever steps are taken.

Note, I don't really want to carry on a debate about it but I do believe in man made climate change and wish my country would do more to be a meaningful part of a solution. My statement above is just my opinion on why there is such a backlash against by the public in the USA.

Nuclear Disarmament didn't cause... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46902331)

1. heating bills to go up.
2. My cooling bills to go up.
3. My gasoline cost to go up.
4. My food cost to go up due to all the above costs for the food producers to go up.
5. Local brownouts due to power plants being taken off line.

Re:Nuclear Disarmament didn't cause... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46902595)

1 through 4 are because of the general trends in oil and gas prices. What many forget here is that demand from Asia far outstrips supplies and producers would produce more if it were available in the ground. Even if all this AGW were to disappear, the price of oil will continue to increase - regardlesss of how much is produced because of demand. We the USA are 300 million people and use 25% of the World's oil. There a several billion people in Asia who want to live like us. See?

#5 Power plants are not being taken off line because of Global warming. They are taken offline for maintenance or fuel conversions.

And I just wish fossil fuels would just go away. I'm tired of living with smog 5 months a year.

You speak of costs but what about the healthcare costs from breathing the particulates and other pollution from using ancient fuel sources. Then there's the loss of productivity because of the pollution. Oh no! Americans want to drive around in their 5.5L V8s and to hell with clean air and our health! It's the 'Merikan way!

Anyway, change is a constant in this World and your way of life has already changed - and your standard of living is getting worse because of the fundamental structural changes in our economy. IOWs, any regulations or laws as a result of trying to control AGW and costs associated with it are nothing compared to the way our economy has and is changing.

tl;dr, American values are fucking twisted. CONSUME and CONSUME and fuck everything else because it's OUR WAY OF LIFE! Your way of life is going away whether you want to or not and it has NOTHING to do with AGW. So suck it up.

Re:Nuclear Disarmament didn't cause... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46902817)

No food prices go up because of this crazy idea of burning our food crops as bio-fuels.

And why burn food for fuel, to mitigate CO2 emissions, though there is lots of debate that ethanol and ethanol production actually creates more C02.

They are waging a war on coal and coal plants. I shudder to think what will happen in Chicago next winter, when it is bitter cold, and the grid goes dim or dark because we don't have enough base load power because the EPA mandated coal plants to close.

The air is very clean. According to the EPA, aggregate air pollutants are down 72% since 1970.
The pollution angle against coal is a political one based on bad science to get rid of fossil fuels.

Re:Nuclear Disarmament didn't cause... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46902833)

I think I can speak for most Americans when I say, "Fuck off and die, you mouth breathing, mother's basement dwelling, unemployed mother fucker."

Your buddies are waiting for you. [youtube.com]

Re:Nuclear Disarmament didn't cause... (3, Interesting)

microbox (704317) | about 4 months ago | (#46902813)

A revenue neutral carbon tax would have none of these effects. Your number (5) is just catastrophiying.

Re:Apples, Oranges and Herrings (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46902341)

"but I do believe in man made climate change"

Well I don't believe in it, and I'm right and you are not.

Re:Apples, Oranges and Herrings (1)

just_another_sean (919159) | about 4 months ago | (#46902371)

OK, got it.

Re:Apples, Oranges and Herrings (1)

microbox (704317) | about 4 months ago | (#46902825)

Well I believe in pixies, and I'm right and you are not. Now, what does science have to say on the pixie issue? WHO CARES!!!!

Re:Apples, Oranges and Herrings (2)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 4 months ago | (#46902423)

I'm not sure that's a very good comparison. Nuclear disarmament is not perceived as effecting people in their daily lives.

Well, that and the whole Glasnost/collapse thing the USSR experienced removed the main impetus for stockpiling nukes in the first place...

Re:Apples, Oranges and Herrings (3, Interesting)

Trepidity (597) | about 4 months ago | (#46902469)

I think there's a bit of similarity (though it's still not a perfect analogy) along one particular axis: a large portion of the public, in both cases, believes that not much is going to happen on a global scale anyway, so why take unilateral action. Sure, a world with no nuclear weapons might be great, but it'll never happen, so better keep our own. Similarly, sure, a world without runaway greenhouse gas emissions might be great, but China isn't going to stop and within a few decades will burn so much coal it'll swamp anything we do, so why unilaterally handicap our own industry when it won't matter?

That's somewhat different from visible, localized pollution like smog, where people see a differential benefit: if we clean up our particulate emissions and China doesn't, we get cities with cleaner air and they get gross haze, which we can then feel good about as a sign of our greater level of advancement and quality of life. But emitting less CO2 doesn't really give your local area a pollution advantage, because it's not a localized kind of pollution.

Re:Apples, Oranges and Herrings (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46902563)

That's somewhat different from visible, localized pollution like smog, where people see a differential benefit: if we clean up our particulate emissions and China doesn't, we get cities with cleaner air and they get gross haze, which we can then feel good about as a sign of our greater level of advancement and quality of life. But emitting less CO2 doesn't really give your local area a pollution advantage, because it's not a localized kind of pollution.

This.

The EPA has done some wonderful things. The air in LA is breathable, for instance, and there are lakes in the Northeast where the fish have bounced back after the acid rains stopped, and where the mercury levels have dropped to the point that not only can you catch fish, you can eat the fish, too! These changes have led to noticeable improvements in the space of a decade or two; well within human memory timeframes.

Climate change isn't the same kind of problem. If the sea levels rise by a meter or two in 50 years, Bangladesh gets washed away, but major coastal cities will have plenty of time to build massive seabreaks. Even if you live by the coast in a small town, that's plenty of time to sell your home to someone with more money than brains and move further inland. If California becomes too hot to grow wine, production will shift northward up the coast from CA to WA to BC. Plenty of time for vineyards to sell their businesses to some other chump, or to scale down production and sell the land to whoever doesn't mind living in a desert. If the predictions are wrong and we have 3-5m of sea level rise, or the planet starts to turn into a tropical steambath? Well, as long as those consequences get pushed out to more than 100 years from now, everyone I know or care about will be dead anyways. Meh.

Unlike local pollution (or the threat of a nuclear war that could ruin your entire day), climate change is the sort of problem where it's very easy to shrug and say "Meh, let the next generation take care of it."

Re:Apples, Oranges and Herrings (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46902861)

CO2 is NOT pollution, it is essential to life on earth.

Sea level rise is not accelerating.
It is 2 or 3mm/year, so 50 years gets 150mm, or 0.15 meter. A far cry from the 1-2 meters you mentioned.

Re:Apples, Oranges and Herrings (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 4 months ago | (#46902477)

The "public" is conditioned, from birth, to defer to the established authority and prefers to live the submissive life with no obligations. Nobody is going to rock the boat until they miss a meal or two... or Facebook gets shut down.

Re:Apples, Oranges and Herrings (2)

microbox (704317) | about 4 months ago | (#46902845)

The "public" is conditioned

Wow, that makes you sound far better than the average sheeple out there. I mean, you couldn't possibly be being lead around by the nose. Said every ideologue in all of history.

Deference to authority *and* paranoia have strong biological bases. So is thinking we're better than others. It's amazing how much of ourselves we reveal in just a few words.

Re:Apples, Oranges and Herrings (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 4 months ago | (#46902919)

Wow, that makes you sound far better than the average sheeple out there.

Maybe in your mind. For others it can be seen as a confession. Eh, I guess it goes to show how meaningless words can be when subject to such wildly variable interpretations.

Re:Apples, Oranges and Herrings (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 4 months ago | (#46902585)

The thing is, you're not affected by nuclear weapons until you're on the receiving end and once you are, you won't have much time to care about it.

Nuclear disarmament hasn't happened. (3, Informative)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | about 4 months ago | (#46902593)

I'm not sure that's a very good comparison. Nuclear disarmament is not perceived as effecting people in their daily lives.

More to the point, nuclear disarmament hasn't happened.

There has been some shift in the composition of the nuclear forces, but that's primarily due to changes in the expected way that a war would proceed and thus the planned utilization of nuclear weapons, not due to disarmament.

Re:Apples, Oranges and Herrings (1)

microbox (704317) | about 4 months ago | (#46902807)

In order to enact meaningful carbon reduction legislation things have to change for everyone.

That's not really true. There will be big changes for the coal/oil industry, but most people wouldn't notice the difference of a transition to a low carbon economy. The notion that there will be huge changes and destructive regulations is just a tired little canard that gets pulled out by every industry that is facing down government interference. Remember, regulating CFCs and SO2 was also supposed to *ruin* the economy. The US government could not build one aircraft carrier to pay for the needed infrastructure.

Re:Apples, Oranges and Herrings (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46902869)

I'm not sure that's a very good comparison. Nuclear disarmament is not perceived as effecting people in their daily lives.

If you're trying to kill somebody, would you rather have:
A heavy machine gun with 10,000 rounds of ammo (1960s era nuclear arsenal); or
A rifle with 10 bullets and a high-tech targeting system capable of 99.999999999% accuracy? (2010s era nuclear arsenal)

Disarmament is not affecting the "disarmed" nations either. As targeting and other related subsystems (including yield) are improved, the number of warheads/missiles needed to accomplish the same level of assured destruction is reduced.

Disarmament is a joke.

duh.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46902345)

less nukes safes money, more money for nice things -> average citizen happy, votes for incumbent candidate again.

Less CO2 costs money, less money for nice things -> average citizen angry, votes for challenger.

People value theirown short term self interest above anything.
How is this not obvious ?

Doesn't Matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46902381)

PV = nRT

dPdV / RdT = dn

At constant P and V, a 100 K increase in T (i.e. dT) = 0.08 moles increase of CO2.

I can hear Ronald Reagan saying, "Um, it doesn't matter."

Ha ha

Re:Doesn't Matter (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46902425)

Let me guess, you failed differential calculus 101?

Translation: Let's FORCE it on them! (4, Insightful)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 4 months ago | (#46902383)

Hippies always start with education. But it never takes long for them to turn to laws and court cases to force their point of view on the rest of us. That's why "Let's work together to conserve water!" turned from voluntary to the point where I can't leagally buy a shower-head that doesn't have the power of warm snot.

Re:Translation: Let's FORCE it on them! (4, Informative)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 4 months ago | (#46902407)

to the point where I can't leagally buy a shower-head that doesn't have the power of warm snot.

Two seconds and a small screwdriver to pop out that stupid flow restrictor works wonders. Five minutes and a drill handles anything tougher to remove.

Re:Translation: Let's FORCE it on them! (1)

westlake (615356) | about 4 months ago | (#46902623)

Two seconds and a small screwdriver to pop out that stupid flow restrictor works wonders. Five minutes and a drill handles anything tougher to remove.

You will take a hit on your water and heating bills.

Re:Translation: Let's FORCE it on them! (3, Insightful)

microbox (704317) | about 4 months ago | (#46902849)

Not with a revenue neutral carbon tax.

Re:Translation: Let's FORCE it on them! (3, Informative)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 4 months ago | (#46902851)

You will take a hit on your water and heating bills.

Not necessarily - greater flow means a faster shower; instead of having to stay in longer while waiting for that slow flow to get everything wet, then wait for it to wash off the soap, I can cut shower times down to a mere fraction of what they would otherwise take. Then you have the fact that with a restricted flow, a huge percentage of the heat in your hot water is radiating out into your walls while it sits there waiting its turn to go out the shower head (few houses insulate hot water pipes all the way from heater to bathroom, so...) Finally, you don't have to wait as long for the shower water to heat up in the first place, so you can get right in without waiting.

To be honest, I haven't seen hardly any an increase in water or heating costs since I did it, and it saves me a bit of time.

Also, there are folks living in areas where water flow is kind of sluggish in the first place - why should they have to suffer even more?

Re:Translation: Let's FORCE it on them! (1)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 4 months ago | (#46902897)

Reminds me our "water saving" toilets at work. I need to flush them 3 times to everything to go down, and have to deal with the leftovers from those that don't.

Re:Translation: Let's FORCE it on them! (4, Insightful)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 4 months ago | (#46902627)

That was just one example. here are a couple more.
1. The ban on most incandescent bulbs.
2. The attempted ban on extra large soft drinks in NY.
3. The ban on plastic grocery bags in many jurisdictions.

Re:Translation: Let's FORCE it on them! (2)

microbox (704317) | about 4 months ago | (#46902875)

I assume you understand why someone might want to mandate (1), (2), and (3), and you also realize the impact to everyone. Not saying that I agree with these issues, but am saying that I think you really don't understand them, but are sure you know who the bad guys are.

Re:Translation: Let's FORCE it on them! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46902931)

That was just one example. here are a couple more. 1. The ban on most incandescent bulbs. 2. The attempted ban on extra large soft drinks in NY. 3. The ban on plastic grocery bags in many jurisdictions.

Here are some more:

1. Abortion bans
2. Marijuana bans
3. Gay Marriage bans
Oh, wait, those are conservative positions that actively prevent education and rely on ignorance, hate, and the law. Sorry, my bad.

Re:Translation: Let's FORCE it on them! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46902671)

You sound a criminal, comrade. Hold on while I contact the environmental police.

Re:Translation: Let's FORCE it on them! (0, Troll)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 4 months ago | (#46902439)

Hippies always start with education. But it never takes long for them to turn to laws and court cases to force their point of view on the rest of us.

Rednecks are hard to educate.

Re:Translation: Let's FORCE it on them! (4, Insightful)

digsbo (1292334) | about 4 months ago | (#46902537)

I'm enjoying the fact that I can't tell if you hate the people you refer to as rednecks, or are pointing out the hypocrisy of the left-liberal people who hate people they refer to as rednecks while simultaneously believing they are tolerant and sensitive to the poor and uneducated.

Re:Translation: Let's FORCE it on them! (1, Flamebait)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 4 months ago | (#46902731)

I'm enjoying the fact it went over the rednecks heads.

Re:Translation: Let's FORCE it on them! (0)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 4 months ago | (#46902889)

I'm enjoying the fact it went over the rednecks heads.

I'd imagine it's probably pretty lonely up on that pedestal...

Re:Translation: Let's FORCE it on them! (1)

microbox (704317) | about 4 months ago | (#46902903)

Haha, I think it was a joke =0. All my politics steams from a scientific epistemology, which means I have little sympathy for what the GOP has become in recent years. If you are interested in understand the world, you'd put down your favorite media, and educate yourself, in the sense of learning about exactly what makes your ears burns and leaves a pit in your stomach, most smart people cannot do that, and the ability to do that is was separates a person to actually know something.

Re:Translation: Let's FORCE it on them! (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46902583)

Ah yes the tyrant comes out al last. We aren't going to use logic and reason to convince you we are right. We are going to use force.

Submit to the god of the global warming.

Is that what you have to say?

Re:Translation: Let's FORCE it on them! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46902795)

It's impossible to convince anyone by using logic and reason.

Re:Translation: Let's FORCE it on them! (2)

mbkennel (97636) | about 4 months ago | (#46902859)


When logic and reason and decades of actual science fail to work against people who are impervious, then what?

Re:Translation: Let's FORCE it on them! (2)

Trepidity (597) | about 4 months ago | (#46902489)

I think you got your units mixed up: warm snot is a measure of temperature (can also be used as a measure of texture), not a measure of power.

Re:Translation: Let's FORCE it on them! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46902855)

He's obviously referring to fluid flow in terms of viscosity. Durrrrr.

Re:Translation: Let's FORCE it on them! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46902587)

Have you ever actually tried a real water-saving showerhead? Those things pressurize the water so much that it feels like a pressure washer if you open the valve all the way.

Re:Translation: Let's FORCE it on them! (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 4 months ago | (#46902591)

Those old hippies are pretty astute. They're selling the "ecologically friendly" plumbing that's being mandated. It's kind of an old trick, widely practiced by the insurance industry.

Re:Translation: Let's FORCE it on them! (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about 4 months ago | (#46902641)

Yes, climate regulations will have to be forced, against large and extremely well funded resistance. It won't work, quite frankly. Not because of people like you who don't want to pay 10% more on their heating and cooling bill, but because of people like the Koch brothers who will happily spend tens of millions of dollars to protect their interests.

Re:Translation: Let's FORCE it on them! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46902885)

lol 10% increased bills. Under so many of these proposals I would have to start showering once a week. Some of you hippies may already do this, but the rest of us like to stay clean

Re:Translation: Let's FORCE it on them! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46902831)

And here is exactly why conservation issues cannot be brought to the general public. The general public has all the foresight of a lump of clay. And even less understanding of what "science" is or what constitutes proper scientific methodology. This is also why more than one scientific journal has started to disable blogs on their articles - because the volume of uneducated and rhetorical commentary detracts too heavily from any principled discussion of the findings and/or methodology.

Yes, you have to make some changes in your lifestyle if you don't want to wake up one day and find that you have to make *lots* of changes that are *far* less appealing because you've painted yourself into a corner that you cannot get out of.

99% of the population will never understand that concept and will fight it tooth and nail. This is how politicians and religious leaders have taken advantage of the masses for centuries. Sadly, this falls into the category of trying to safe people from their own short-comings, which is a necessary but thankless task.

Re:Translation: Let's FORCE it on them! (1)

Khashishi (775369) | about 4 months ago | (#46902865)

That's because education doesn't do any good when people don't give a damn.

Love the idea, hate the ideologues (5, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 4 months ago | (#46902391)

What TFA seems to fail at pointing out was that nuclear disarmament isn't happening because of anything the activists or advocates did - it's happening because one of the main cold-war aggressors was forced to give up. When the USSR collapsed, the biggest reason that the US and (let's be honest) China were stockpiling nukes was, well, gone - almost overnight. Without that reason, disarmament could get underway in earnest.

Same story here: until something happens that makes the public at large want to do something about pollution, you're not going to get them to stop polluting as much. In this case, the ideologues aren't going to accomplish jack - like the activists of the 1970's and 1980's, all they'll manage to do is polarize and piss-off the folks whose minds they want to have changed.

Instead, if you want a real solution, how about making a cleaner lifestyle a preferred one? Make green tech cheaper over time, and make it easier to use than the old polluting stuff (and no, not by simply levying a "carbon tax" on the existing stuff, either.) Make the preferred stuff more durable.

For example, look at Germany - they put in some damned nice tax breaks for alternative energies, big enough (and personal enough) for Germans to shingle nearly every damned building and outhouse in the nation with solar panels, and for companies to erect wind farms wherever they could. Make biofuels cheaper than regular gasoline by not charging a federal excise tax on it (and get the states to do the same), and I bet the stuff would suddenly get competitive. Sweeten the deal on alternative fuels a bit by cutting (or eliminating) road use taxes on all vehicles fitted to use only natural gas, electricity, or suchlike.

The idea is to not prohibit, but to entice. To remove the reasons why someone would want to stick with the old, bad ways. If you can do that, you can get somewhere, but I sincerely doubt that activists are going to blaze that trail...

Re:Love the idea, hate the ideologues (3, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 4 months ago | (#46902527)

but I sincerely doubt that activists are going to blaze that trail...

Activists not only want that, it's happening. There are many tax incentives for green tech. But it's hard won as the old entrenched corporate powers that use lobbying to oppose it.

e.g. the Koch brothers funding the organisation that recently removed the incentive for solar electricity generation in one state.

Re:Love the idea, hate the ideologues (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46902905)

Did you go to a class to be this fucking stupid?

As soon as one of you morons mention Koch brothers, most people stop reading, unless they are Kool Aid swilling morons like yourself.

And interestingly, "Goose Stepping Morons" is becoming a more appropriate label for your little wanna be Brownshirts.

Re:Love the idea, hate the ideologues (4, Insightful)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 4 months ago | (#46902659)

Look at Germany?

3 times the electricity cost of the US, INCREASING CO2 emissions with the nuclear slowdown. Grid stability becoming a big problem. Expected increasing costs due to lack of revenues from nuclear tax. That doesn't even take in to account the costs they will start incurring in the next decade to replace/maintain aging wind and solar assets.

Spending a huge amount of money on a marginally effective and expensive solution doesn't equate to success, although it may appear that way to those who just see the panels and turbines and think all is wonderful.

Re:Love the idea, hate the ideologues (4, Insightful)

mbkennel (97636) | about 4 months ago | (#46902835)

The message from Germany is that if you replace nuclear power with coal then more CO2 will be emitted. Well, of course. What climate action advocates favor using more coal? None.

If greenhouse gases emissions were actually taxed, then they wouldn't do that.

Of course there are unscientific 'environmentalists' whose emotional reactions to nuclear power (less safe and clean than solar, more safe and clean than coal) and unwillingness to look at quantitative facts lead them to bad outcomes. Just as climate deniers do.

Re:Love the idea, hate the ideologues (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46902673)

For example, look at Germany - they put in some damned nice tax breaks for alternative energies, big enough (and personal enough) for Germans to shingle nearly every damned building and outhouse in the nation with solar panels

Says someone who clearly does not live in Germany.

Re:Love the idea, hate the ideologues (1)

jopsen (885607) | about 4 months ago | (#46902729)

For example, look at Germany...

Germany does put high taxes on energy in order to subsidize green energy production and projects.
They don't just hand out taxes breaks, they also raises taxes on fossil fuel...

Taxes is a tool to be used here.. The US is using it, but not enough, and the US probably doesn't have the will/strength/ability to do because of all the money involved in politics and big corporations lobby against it...

China? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46902403)

How can the american public reduce the enormous Chinese CO2 rate unless we quit buying from them?

So it's now time lie and cheat? (0, Troll)

bobbied (2522392) | about 4 months ago | (#46902459)

So, because your argument is too hard for the public to understand, you got to go underground?

Because you are loosing the sound bite war it's time for subterfuge?

It's stories like these that give me hope, not that the man made global warming crowd might win, but that they realize that their argument doesn't seem to be winning the debate. They tried the direct approach, lying through people like Al Gore, and then got caught cooking the evidence. Now it's time to end the direct propaganda war and head into an insurgency conflict? Take it to the streets guys, but this is indication that you are loosing...

I hope the strategy catches on, I'm tired of listening to them, plus I don't think they will be successful in the world of subterfuge...

PS.. Bye Bye Karma.... Here come the shrill climate change zealots to mod me down..

Re:So it's now time lie and cheat? (2, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 4 months ago | (#46902539)

They tried the direct approach, lying through people like Al Gore, and then got caught cooking the evidence. Now it's time to end the direct propaganda war

Ahem. You're the one engaged in a propaganda war.

Bad analogy (4, Interesting)

Tailhook (98486) | about 4 months ago | (#46902481)

Drawing down strategic weapons is a part of the "peace dividend" in the public mind. What "dividend" is the public supposed to believe will appear by making energy into an expensive luxury? This analogy is just bogus.

Re:Bad analogy (1)

Kohath (38547) | about 4 months ago | (#46902895)

Environmentalist narcissism dividend. Plus extremely rich people like Al Gore get to profit by selling you carbon credits and other stuff you don't want but will be forced to buy.

How are you spending your cut of the peace dividend, BTW? I'm pretty sure my peace dividend check got lost in the mail.

Pointless comparison ..... (1)

King_TJ (85913) | about 4 months ago | (#46902497)

Nobody I know has a regular use for nuclear warheads. The military purchased all of those with the government's stamp of approval, while the public was only told "It's for your safety and security, because we've got to match what the other countries are doing so we're not at a disadvantage!" GIven that, of COURSE the disarmament process would ALSO be something the military and the government would undertake without the public getting very involved (or given much detailed information about it).

Asking people to change the household items they purchase and use, and to support changes in how their electrical power gets generated (when those changes typically cost them more on their monthly electric bills) is a completely different thing.

I, too, am willing to accept that man-made climate change is actually happening. That doesn't mean I won't remain a skeptic when it comes to government or private industries with agendas telling me I need to pay more money for their "solutions" to the problem.

Re:Pointless comparison ..... (3, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 4 months ago | (#46902639)

I, too, am willing to accept that man-made climate change is actually happening. That doesn't mean I won't remain a skeptic when it comes to government or private industries with agendas telling me I need to pay more money for their "solutions" to the problem.

The Republican 9 step plan to Global Warming Denial.

1) There's no such thing as global warming.
2) There's global warming, but the scientists are exaggerating. It's not significant.
3) There's significant global warming, but man doesn't cause it.
4) Man does cause it, but it's not a net negative.
5) It is a net negative, but it's not economically possible to tackle it.
6) We need to tackle global warming, so make the poor pay for it.
7) Global warming is bad for business. Why did the Democrats not tackle it earlier?
8) ????
9) Profit.

I welcome the progression of at least accepting anthropogenic global warming is real.

Problems (4, Insightful)

meta-monkey (321000) | about 4 months ago | (#46902503)

1) We have care overload. I have to care about global warming, and nuclear proliferation, and school shootings, and AIDS, and breast cancer awareness, and domestic spying, and and and... It's hard to get people to care about thing A when they're exhausted from being told to care about things B-Z.

2) There is very little an individual can do about climate change. I was at Disney's Animal Kingdom once and they had a display about conserving energy and bullshit and I thought I was taking crazy pills. This park wastes more energy in a day than I could in a hundred lifetimes, and they're lecturing me? As if I'm the problem?

Re:Problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46902683)

re 1) This is why I support the universal transparent ribbon of universal concern.

It compresses all the care ribbons into one perfectly transparent ribbon that goes with anything. I embedded a small one after this text to demonstrate:

Nuclear comparison... (2)

Roogna (9643) | about 4 months ago | (#46902567)

Actually isn't it the exact opposite? Nuclear disarmament happens because no one anywhere wants anything to do with nuclear anything if it's in their personal backyard. So there's no place to even store the weapons, waste, processing plants, or anything else, that doesn't make it a political storm. We're gaining nuclear disarmament mostly for the same reason we can't gain new modern nuclear power. The public simply freaks out about the word, not because there's any real logic applied.

The problem with greenhouse emissions, is the word greenhouse just doesn't inspire any fear.

The market controls the world (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about 4 months ago | (#46902675)

Nuclear disarmament is hardly the result of hard work of advocates.

Instead it is the work of improvements in delivery/targeting technology, ongoing cost of stockpile maintenance nobody wants to bear and unnecessary risk of weapons getting into the wrong hands. There simply is no point in anyone stockpiling such absurd numbers of nukes anymore... resulting stockpile reduction agreements were predictable no-brainers.

Likewise if you want to move the needle WRT climate change you need to deliver alternatives which are no-brainers for consumers. Everything else is just tree hugging nonsense that will be ignored no matter what you say or do.

somewhat valid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46902677)

Considering gov't is owned by corporations nowadays (yes includes a small % of 'the people'). They should take it to the corporations.

Taking to the people was an 80's strategy.

We Understand But ... (1)

PineHall (206441) | about 4 months ago | (#46902733)

The majority of Americans believe that human caused global warming is happening. The majority believe we need to do something about it, but they believe that whatever actions are taken should not negatively impact their lifestyle. This means anything that would cause increased costs for them is not acceptable. This means that changing the way they go about doing things is not going to happen. That is the problem.

so true (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46902829)

People have been screaming "climate change" for too long. It seems many have alterior motives for doing so: increasing taxes, political power and control etc. What should happen is scientists or whoever start creating and providing ways to help with this problem besides bitching about the stoopid public. When something beneficial if available people will use it. Aren't the new lightbulbs (for example) supposed to help? Get on it boys.

Re:We Understand But ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46902893)

The moment the people saying that this is a crisis begin living the lifestyle that will be the end result of the policies they advocate for everyone ELSE is the moment I will pay attention to their arguments.

I don't care (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46902891)

I just tell the denialists that I don't have children so I don't care.

Indeed (1)

Stumbles (602007) | about 4 months ago | (#46902917)

Science should never let discussion ever ever get in the way of acting in tyrannical ways. Erm wait, I don't think that is science. Never mind.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>