Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Let Me Gaze Into My Crystal Ball (Score 1) 716

by dave420 (#48635053) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'

Global cooling: A fringe belief in the 1970s, and never the prevalent theory (but oft reported as such in media which seeks to lampoon actual scientific discovery)
Global warming: The increased heat in the Earth's system (in the atmosphere, seas, etc.)
Climate change: Changes to the climate, which might result from cooling or warming
Climate disruption: The specific changes to the world's climate which cause disruption to the existing industries and societies

You playfully confusing these terms only shows your ignorance, and does not cast dispersion on the people who use them, or on the phenomena they describe.

Comment: Re:Sure (Score 1) 716

by dave420 (#48634997) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'
They're not comparable, as one side is accepting the scientific method, and the other side is ignoring it. You calling those who believe the results of the scientific method (which gave you the computer you're looking at now) a church only shows your bias, and doesn't reflect poorly on them.

Comment: Re:Scandalgate! (Score 1) 716

by dave420 (#48634965) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'

English is a descriptive language, not prescriptive, so if a word or suffix is used in a particular fashion by enough people, that becomes the meaning. You should probably get over that, as otherwise you'll have a very annoyed life. Language evolves, as do the meanings of the words we use.

Further reading

Comment: Re:Science is on the skeptical side of this debate (Score 4, Informative) 716

by dave420 (#48634885) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'
The science is on the side of AGW. That's it. Challenge all you want, but when you start ignoring study after study and claim they're all wrong or in some sort of conspiracy, you are not engaging in science or skepticism but block-headed cynicism.

Comment: Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score 3, Insightful) 716

by dave420 (#48633311) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'
Precisely - question the science and listen to the answers given. That's where this 'denialism' ceases to be skepticism and becomes cynicism - if one asks a question in order to learn, then that is skepticism. To ask the question and then ignore the demonstrated answer, or claim it's nonsense (without evidence), is not skepticism, even if it uses the same words and starts off looking identical.

Comment: Re:That's not what happened at all (Score 1) 222

by dave420 (#48632813) Attached to: Marissa Mayer's Reinvention of Yahoo! Stumbles

That is a massive amount of guesswork that any rational person would feel ashamed to vomit on the internet. If you can back it up with sources, that would be something different. The sheer number of generalisations you've made, seemingly based solely on the idea of sexism, is incredibly telling.

By "white knight" you seem to be meaning "non-sexist". It's weird you'd think that would be something to be ashamed of, but in light of your eagerness to throw around allegations of sexism and self-proclaimed omniscience of the business world, one could not really expect you to behave like a rational person.

Comment: Re:Why bother? (Score 1) 40

by dave420 (#48632761) Attached to: Satellite Captures Glowing Plants From Space
Or we could just stick with the science, which has roundly demonstrated climate change, and pinned the cause on AGW. If people want to dissent and be taken seriously, they should publish papers in respected journals, as we as a society demand our scientists do. Giving equal time to people who are just spouting off nonsensical gut-feeling arguments or who are woefully ignorant of the data and the implications drawn therefrom, is only going to hurt us all.

Comment: Re:The presumption is: carbon is bad... (Score 1) 40

by dave420 (#48632385) Attached to: Satellite Captures Glowing Plants From Space
You are the one apparently peddling nonsense. If you don't like the scientific method, stop using your computer now. You using it is hypocritical, if you are going to turn around and say the very method itself is intrinsically flawed. Either your computer works and there is indeed anthropogenic global warming, or your computer doesn't work and there isn't. You can't really have both.

Comment: Re:Ethics? (Score 1, Insightful) 553

by dave420 (#48632091) Attached to: FBI Confirms Open Investigation Into Gamergate
epyT-R, I also seem to remember you making many utterly misogynistic posts in the past, such as "women shouldn't/can't be scientists" and so on, so it's not really surprising that you'd be complaining about people calling other people out for being narrow-minded and intellectually lazy. When you're being socially unjust, I guess people looking for social justice are your enemy, hence your tirades against them.

Comment: Re:Ethics? (Score 4, Insightful) 553

by dave420 (#48632037) Attached to: FBI Confirms Open Investigation Into Gamergate
Calling something "social justice" does not immediately relegate it to obscurity. "Social justice" is just a term to mean "admit less-than-stellar behavior towards minorities or the underrepresented, and earnestly try to improve it". Unless you'd call Rosa Parks a SJW you really should stop trying to use terms like that pejoratively - it makes you look like a tiny-minded, scared child, who is worried their favorite toys aren't as awesome as they always thought, and lashes out at anyone who might point that out to them.

Comment: Re:Land of the free (Score 1) 579

by dave420 (#48631935) Attached to: Reaction To the Sony Hack Is 'Beyond the Realm of Stupid'

So instead of fixing the actual problems, such as poverty, the answer is to just fill the area with guns. You could try turning where you live into civilization, instead of just keeping the status quo. Where do you live, late-90s Mogadishu?

In the city where I live (not in the US, in a country with relatively few guns), there was a robbery involving guns. A policewoman was shot in the leg (and the robbers killed or caught). People still talk about it. That happened ~three years ago. It was so unusual, so unthinkable, that it sticks in peoples' minds. I can't imagine living in a place where that would be considered normal, expected behavior.

So yeah, I think filling society with guns then saying you need more guns to fix the problem of so many guns is pretty irrational, but then we don't have much crime, and certainly very little gun crime.

C for yourself.