Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Not asking for grants from the civil society?

This is just what we need. Even more crooks running around stealing people's catalytic converters, to force people to stop driving CO2 emitting vehicles and get EV's.

Climate change is also going to be very inconvenient.

Much of the opposition to action on climate change is predicated on the assumption that scientists aren't objective: That they are pushing an agenda.

So to have scientists go out and engage in civil disobedience to push an agenda will be a confirmation of the denialists' beliefs, since any scientist willing to block a street to make a point may be willing to falsify data to make the same point. The denialists will look at the misbehaving scientists and say, "See. We told you so."

Scientists should endeavor to improve their credibility rather than destroy it.

Nobody's seriously denying anthropomorphic global heating anymore.

Nobody's seriously denying anthropomorphic global heating anymore.

That is an astoundingly ignorant belief. Have you looked at the polls for the November election? Not only are people denying AGW, but in six months the denialists may be running the country. You need to get out of your bubble.

Oh - I didn't realise they were going to be blocking streets.

I thought civil disobedience for a scientist was wearing a blue coat instead of a white one, deliberately putting books back on the wrong library shelf, or putting swear words in the middle of long technical sentences when they write papers.

It isn't the scientists whose credibility is threatened.

It isn't the scientists whose credibility is threatened.

Credibility: The quality of being trusted and believed in.

If a plurality of voters don't believe the scientists, then, by definition, they lack credibility.

Besides, how does one prove anything to a denier? you CAN'T.

Besides, how does one prove anything to a denier? you CAN'T.

The point of a debate is not to convince your opponent but to convince the audience.

We will never convince the denialists. But we don't have to. We only need to convince the swing voters.

But to do that, we need to acknowledge that we are currently LOSING the debate. The party of the denialists is forecast to win the midterm elections. Much of the reason

Civil disobedience usually just means harassing and inconveniencing people that have nothing to do with whatever you're angry about.

Civil disobedience usually just means harassing and inconveniencing people that have nothing to do with whatever you're angry about.

These guys that do things like cementing their hand to the pavement and blocking traffic are gonna eventually meet some construction worker with a hatchet in his toolbox.

These guys that do things like cementing their hand to the pavement and blocking traffic are gonna eventually meet some construction worker with a hatchet in his toolbox.

Just get 2-4 of them to grab the person's other hand/legs and tug.

That glued skin will break free and normal traffic can resume....although the dislodged protester might leave a few of his fingerprints behind.

Found the cave-man fantasizing about solving the problem with violence...

Civil disobedience usually just means harassing and inconveniencing people that have nothing to do with whatever you're angry about. These guys that do things like cementing their hand to the pavement and blocking traffic are gonna eventually meet some construction worker with a hatchet in his toolbox.

Civil disobedience usually just means harassing and inconveniencing people that have nothing to do with whatever you're angry about.

Civil disobedience usually just means harassing and inconveniencing people that have nothing to do with whatever you're angry about.

These guys that do things like cementing their hand to the pavement and blocking traffic are gonna eventually meet some construction worker with a hatchet in his toolbox.

That's a big sacrifice, but the crime will bring the scientists a lot more support than a Ted Talk would! Even moreso if the perp doesn't immediately kill himself, and ends up going to trial! With a bunch of caveman supporters outside shouting horrible things. It would finally bring home what we're up against.

sometimes. e.g., rosa parks did indeed piss off a lot of white racists by invading their holy bus, blessed be her black soul.

however that doesn't define civil disobedience. you should really try and educate yourself about it because it's one of those important social mechanisms responsible of a lot of the progress you now benefit from. not to mention coming across as an ignorant by making bold nonsensical statements about it ...

that said, i do not necessarily agree with these scientists.

there are many forms of civil disobedience that don't disturb random people at all, then again even if they do it's never the first option, but a risky gamble because all established mechanisms have already shown to be useless. omelette and cracked eggs. if the trend picks up and the pressure is enough, things (maybe) change, if not then negative consequences will have to be assumed. all in all, that's one of the ways in which society as whole has to deal with its issues. you may agree, or not, vote in favo

Wow. Your knowledge of US history seems a bit weak. The democratic process has never worked for the oppressed. Ever. The only reason why women and minorities can even vote in our country is because of civil disobedience. You have to know that. Right? The only reason you have any days off from your job is because of civil disobedience. The reason that gay people aren't thrown in jail for being gay is because of civil disobedience. This country EXISTS because of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience has been an extremely important part of our country since before it was even a country.

Wow. Your knowledge of US history seems a bit weak. The democratic process has never worked for the oppressed. Ever. The only reason why women and minorities can even vote in our country is because of civil disobedience. You have to know that. Right? The only reason you have any days off from your job is because of civil disobedience. The reason that gay people aren't thrown in jail for being gay is because of civil disobedience. This country EXISTS because of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience has been an extremely important part of our country since before it was even a country.

Is there anything civil disobedience can't accomplish?

neither did these whitecoats, they just glued scientific papers or their own hand to a glass facade. this is millennial disobedience, man!

These people do not either. That will be done by other people in a decade or so when it becomes extremely clear how utterly fucked we are.

And because of Rosa Parks' brave act, we now have cleaner neighborhoods, safer streets and better schools....

And because of Rosa Parks' brave act, we now have cleaner neighborhoods, safer streets and better schools....

it seems she pissed you of too ... :-D

I still hope that these assholes will get reincarnated right into the middle of the mess they share a significant responsibility for. That will probably be happening to me as well, but you cannot have everything.

Well, true. They will still suffer and probably quite a few will die from it even if they deny having any responsibility for things. Modern life is very, very fragile.

This mechanism is a great way to ensure poor decisions are kept being made on mass-scale, because you can only learn from your mistakes if you take responsibility for them.

Maybe they'll arrange beakers randomly rather than by size.

They're gonna stop making the blue meth. That'll learn us!

Refuse to travel to far-away conferences and symposia! That'll show 'em!

Seriously, do these guys not remember getting stuffed into lockers in high school? They're probably gonna get hurt...

Seriously, do these guys not remember getting stuffed into lockers in high school? They're probably gonna get hurt...

Seriously, do these guys not remember getting stuffed into lockers in high school? They're probably gonna get hurt...

Slashdot. News for... high school bullies?

Actually, a complete and total boycott of fossil fuel powered travel would be a form of civil disobedience I can respect.

Actually, a complete and total boycott of fossil fuel powered travel would be a form of civil disobedience I can respect.

I agree with you. I just don't think it'll happen.

While it wouldn't be 100% "pure", moving all these meetings online would reduce their carbon footprint significantly and could still probably be 95% as effective.

This guy had the right idea: https://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/22510 [roadsideamerica.com]

Or, like the current Pope, flies off to meetings around the world while writing an actual medieval encyclical telling middle and lower class Catholics that air conditioning is now a sin.

https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html [vatican.va]

Because shooting people and burning gunpowder, or for that matter driving or *flying in a jet* to the protest, certainly isn't a carbon source.

Protesting does nothing other than harm the cause you claim to be protesting for, you dumb hypocrites.

Start by sabotaging the elites private jets, yachts and Hummer sized vehicles. Call out elites that don't support nuclear power Call out elites that have multiple mansions, some on a beach that they say will be underwater in a decade.

>Let's follow the great civil rights leader Greta Thunberg, the child who sailed around the world in a private yacht and condemned minority-share Western CO2 emitters while completely ignoring the role of developing nations like India and refusing to utter a single word against unrepentant, unregulated juggernauts like China.

So, what degrees did these scientists get? The article is paywalled.

Greta Thunberg, the child who sailed around the world in a private yacht and condemned minority-share Western CO2 emitters while completely ignoring the role of developing nations like India and refusing to utter a single word against unrepentant, unregulated juggernauts like China.

Greta Thunberg, the child who sailed around the world in a private yacht and condemned minority-share Western CO2 emitters while completely ignoring the role of developing nations like India and refusing to utter a single word against unrepentant, unregulated juggernauts like China.

Western CO2 countries started the industrial revolution whereas countries like India and China only started pumping loads of CO2 into the atmosphere relatively recently. So yes, we are largely responsible for 90% of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere. Not only that, but large chunksof CO2 produced by China and India are a result of producing cheap plastic toys, cheap appliances, cheap everything, mostly for us in the developed world. So a considerable number of that CO2 is pollution that we have outsourced to them. So be careful where you try to shift blame.

But the world shouldn't play a blame-shifting game. The world should come together to reduce emissions globally by any means possible. A big part of that should be technology transfer and funding renewables also in developing nations.

So boycott their products- boycott energy produced by fossil fuels- boycott travel on devices that use fossil fuels. Don't forget to boycott the internet while you are at it.

Thank you for your hyperbolic, unrealistic and therefore unfortunately useless contribution.

I do wish people would be more mindful of what they buy and consume though. Stop buying so much cheap, plastic trash stuff, like cheaply made toys that will break after a few days. Bring your own cup to a coffee-to go or make your own coffee at home. Buy more organic food, at least a little depending on what you can afford. Stop driving a car everywhere and use more public transport. Buy an efficient vehicle instead

The point is, lead by example. It's certainly far more realistic to just stay home and boycott the airlines, than it is to *fly to Washington DC to protest climate change by burning down a neighborhood*.

Agreed, reducing carbon footprint starts with us.

So, first off, no more beef. Stick with seasonal veggies and if you must have meat go for fish from sustainable fishing. If everyone did this the CO2 reduction would be enormous, and cancer risk would go down too. Sounds like a win all-around.

Next up, no more driving around in private vehicles. Electric vehicles lower your carbon footprint a bit, but not nearly as much as just sticking with public transportation (or bicycles). More health benefits here t

These things might not be pleasant, but they are THE top four most impactful things an individual can do, and if everyone did it this crisis would be over.

These things might not be pleasant, but they are THE top four most impactful things an individual can do, and if everyone did it this crisis would be over.

I think you will find a substantial number of people prefer the crisis, such as it is, to your solutions.

For what it is worth, I read these in an online list a couple of years ago. I can't find it now, but variations of these items pop up in online lists for "things you can do." So I wouldn't really call these "my solutions." They are just, objectively, some of the most impactful things that we can do. The fact that we don't like them is secondary.

My main point is that it is easy to stomp our feet and point at big businesses and say "you aren't doing enough!" while there are significantly impactful things

I have a different idea on how to get CO2 emissions to near zero. Replace all electricity production with hydro, onshore wind, geothermal, and nuclear fission. These electricity sources are low cost, safe, low in CO2 emissions, low in environmental impact, and can be domestically sourced in most any part of the world.

Replace petroleum based fuels with carbon neutral synthesized hydrocarbons. This is a very old technology, a process we can power with the energy sources listed above. This means we can fly

Go to hell. We got work to do and you are not helping.

Relax It's just a chat forum. We aren't "doing work" here, we are just tossing opinions around. Having a discussion.

I am well aware that people will reject these solutions. That doesn't change the impact they would have, which is what I pointed out. Though I disagree with your insistence that this would cause misery and poverty. Switching to a beef-free diet, for example, would not cause poverty at all. People would have no problem finding an abu

Not only that, but naturally developing nations like China and India want the same lifestyles that we have. So it's up to us to show that you can have the same or better quality of life while emitting less CO2, because if the whole world ends up emitting as much as the average American or European we are all screwed.

By developing and adopting that technology, creating demand for it, we reduce the cost both for ourselves and for developing nations. It's working too. Look at the various options for generating

Not only that, but naturally developing nations like China and India want the same lifestyles that we have. So it's up to us to show that you can have the same or better quality of life while emitting less CO2

Not only that, but naturally developing nations like China and India want the same lifestyles that we have. So it's up to us to show that you can have the same or better quality of life while emitting less CO2

No, it really is not up to us. What's up to us is decreasing our emissions, then we can look around and see if anyone else needs to be convinced by any means necessary to decrease theirs. This is an existential threat, remember? Now if only our fearless leaders would act accordingly.

So, what degrees did these scientists get? The article is paywalled.

So, what degrees did these scientists get? The article is paywalled.

the article is paywalled but the authors' resumes are not. click on the authors, then "View ORCID ID profile"

Perfect objectivity says we should be doing much more about climate change than we are. At best we may get lucky and it's not as bad as the models suggest, but it could also be much worse. The future cost of doing little will be greater than the cost today of fixing it.

And even if it's all a huge mistake, cleaning up the world and reducing pollution has its own benefits.

Falsifying evidence causes a scientist to lose credibility. P hacking [nih.gov] causes a scientist to lose credibility.

Having a political opinion like 99% of Americans, does not ruin a scientist's credibility.

did you mean the CDC guys saying you should practice safe sex to avoid monkey pox? Because they said do cybersex, not a glory hole.

did you mean the CDC guys saying you should practice safe sex to avoid monkey pox? Because they said do cybersex, not a glory hole.

No, I wasn't aware about this new idea. They are indeed full of knowledge. The glory hole advice came from canadian experts and is real. Those examples are just caricatures and show how some scientists can be totally disconnected from real world.

...because this is how you get scientists who feel justified wiping out civilization, like in 12 Monkeys.

Right now it's a decision between "maybe it kills a lot of people somewhere down the line" vs. "impact on the bottom line" for those that have the funds and management positions to make a difference, and we all know which one of those is going to win out.

Right now it's a decision between "maybe it kills a lot of people somewhere down the line" vs. "impact on the bottom line" for those that have the funds and management positions to make a difference, and we all know which one of those is going to win out.

Right now it's a decision between "maybe it kills a lot of people somewhere down the line" vs. "impact on the bottom line" for those that have the funds and management positions to make a difference, and we all know which one of those is going to win out.

But I think that's the AC's point -- even among the millions of people who are convinced fossil-fuels are causing a crisis of runaway global warming which will wipe out most of human civilization by the end of this century, their actions continue to demand more resources, more technology, more conveniences, more entertainments. Everyone says the biosphere is in immanent catastrophic danger, but they also want their own homes, they want those homes air-conditioned to 68F, they want to be kept alive another 5

...and all of that is exactly why you need to think carefully about the consequences of encouraging a savior-complex in scientists who have specialized knowledge and access to materials that can wipe out our big dumb fragile civilization right now, before Nature gets the chance.

I think these types of things totally miss the point. All I hear is, "Jump up and down for attention."

I don't know anyone that denies climate change, and I have many friends standing around the circle of political thought.

What I hear the most is, "Great, what do you want to do about it. Our politicians can't even pass basic things we need, and when we take our eyes off getting our trash picked up, that stops happening too."

I think the majority, as in 95% of us get it and understand its happening. The big question is, "What do you want me, as a mere mortal, with a government that pays little mind to me and my issues, to do about it? I need to drive to work because our bus system sucks and they won't do anything about it. Riding a bike where possible is so dangerous because they won't change how the bike system works on and off roads. They hardly pick up the trash because of budget issues, much less recycle and compost."

People need tangible solutions that are available to them, that make a difference. More scientists jumping up and down screaming about how the world is going to end, isn't going to help anyone, and likely will hurt the entire argument. You'll burn people out.

-- The sky isn't falling. - Thomas Leonard

I don't know anyone that denies climate change, and I have many friends standing around the circle of political thought.

I don't know anyone that denies climate change, and I have many friends standing around the circle of political thought.

I take it you haven't been reading Slashdot for long?

I don't know anyone that denies climate change,

I don't know anyone that denies climate change,

I am frequently called a denier. So now you've met one.

-- I ignore Hallmark Holidays. - Berkeley Breathed

Nice to meet you, too.

There's a lot of ground away from the stereotype of the yokel who believes it's a government hoax. What in particular are you denying?

Personally I don't think I deny anything. I don't see strong evidence supporting that the consequences for human are severe and we cannot smoothly adapt as it changes. I also see things attributed to AGW without a proper investigation. I also have little respect for computer climate models.

At a more detailed level, it is fairly well supported that doubling CO2 in the atmosphere will increase the temperature by ~0.8 degrees. No one thinks that much warming is serious, though. In order for AGW to be an actual pr

I'm probably of much the same opinion as you, and similarly don't classify myself as a climate change denier. It seems to me there is a large gap between hard science, with it's logical deductions and reproducible experiments, and broad multi-disciplinary science trying to predict chaotic systems. There's a larger gap between hard science and human behaviour, and we can't seamlessly flow from one into the other, we're in the realm of politics.

What tempers my scepticism is that I'm not a scientist and the va

So now scientists should take their lead from a kid with anxiety and nothing of value to offer?

Come on guys, this is nonsense. I've seen her in interviews, she has nothing to say unless it's scripted. That whole "sailing across the ocean" thing was a joke, the crew had to be flown in on both ends of the trip. It's just theater that people pretend to take seriously.

color me scared that the climate scientists will rise up in anger and attack us all with charts and "keynote" presentations

Mind you I wouldn't want to piss off a chemist or a nuclear scientist

...a political activist that wants to take credit for advances actually developed by engineers, entrepreneurs and lay inventors.

Gonna make it hot? Fine, we'll just go on strike and turn the world over to mystics, who can then pray to gods for both revelatory insight and whatever atmospheric cleanup the gods say probably isn't necessary anywa-- wait, why does everyone look relieved? No, wait, guys! You need us!!

Scientists are supposed to be the people with solutions, not the people bringing attention to the problem. If they want people to listen about the problem then bring solutions that people will be standing in line to give you their money to have.

I've seen people that brought solutions but for some reason people are not listening. My guess is because the solutions sound too easy. There's also the problem of politicians "not letting a crisis go to waste" and using the threat of global warming to get their unrelated pet projects through the system. One example is adding people to the IRS in a "climate bill". This was passed by a political party that "follows the science" but are afraid to define what is means to be a woman.

We have the solutions to global warming. This is a solved problem. What we have now are politicians that can't allow the problem to be solved because then that means they'd have nothing to scare the voters into voting for them any more.

Has anyone actually read the "Green New Deal"? There's nothing "green" about it. It is all about diverting government money into union jobs, subsidies for women and minority businesses, and next to nothing said about actually lowering CO2 emissions. It appears to me that the politicians that scream the loudest about global warming are going to do the least about it. The people that will do the most about global warming are those that talk about the solutions, not the problem.

Scientists that are screaming about global warming to the point that they glue their hands to windows are those that are most ignorant on the problem. If they understood the problem then they'd be working on solutions instead of wasting their time, and the time of everyone round them, with publicity stunts.

The louder they scream about global warming the more confident I become in that we solved the problem. If there was really a problem then they'd be screaming about the solutions. They don't want solutions, they want people to be concerned about the problem. But concern doesn't solve the problem, solutions solve the problem. And people truly concerned about the problem, concerned to the point of educating themselves, aren't wasting their time with publicity stunts like this.

Scientists are supposed to be the people with solutions, not the people bringing attention to the problem. If they want people to listen about the problem then bring solutions that people will be standing in line to give you their money to have.

Scientists are supposed to be the people with solutions, not the people bringing attention to the problem. If they want people to listen about the problem then bring solutions that people will be standing in line to give you their money to have.

What? no they aren't. That's never been the definition of a scientists. Scientists research the state of the universe. Engineers use that research to change the universe. Politicians and the rest of us misunderstand, disbelieve, and bugger up policy.

If they understood the problem then they'd be working on solutions instead of wasting their time

If they understood the problem then they'd be working on solutions instead of wasting their time

They've given us the solutions, we just don't like them.

Gluing scientific papers to the side of a building is scientific art, not civil disobedience.

Maybe the scientists were performing an experiment to test a theory?

As long as money is given precedence over the environment, we're doomed.

Sure, go ahead. People will realize you "scientists" are just petulant children.

Declaring victory by prejudging responses is weak. Your solution is valid, but impractical. For most people, especially in the U.S., your idea reduces to "don't live", so maybe it would be better to switch to saying "don't have children", or "kill your neighbors". The latter is already working to some effect in Chicago.

(Shrug) We told you how to fix it, but you wouldn't let us build nuclear plants because OOGA BOOGA. So environmentalists are now stuck with a legacy of their own making.

One of the few bright spots in the coming years of conflict is that your ilk will find it harder and harder to dodge the blame that's due.

You clowns won't be happy until everyone (save yourselves, natch) is living in a dystopian Kowloon-scale commune.

Good luck with that. Civil disobedience won't be enough; you'll need guns. I suggest you bear this in mind the next time your politicians try to ban them "for the common good."

Except....overpopulation isn't: https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/ [worldometers.info]

It's pretty clear that it is standard of living, not population, that CO2 emissions are attached to.

You're as wrong as he is - or you should put your money where your mouth is and move to your utopia in Trinidad & Tobago. It's not standard of living or population or any one factor, it's something like energy usage x (1 / technological advancement).

Actually Bangladesh. If we all lived like people in Bangladesh, we could have a population of 80 billion without any problems whatsoever.

Except the problem that we would be living like people on Bangladesh...

T&T is an energy producer--- they are getting charged for their production. In fact, most of the highest users in that chart are producers, including the US and Canada. The strange ones are Luxembourg and Montenegro.

There is definitely a strong correlation between GDP and energy use: https://ourworldindata.org/gra... [ourworldindata.org]

But as you say, that's not the only factor and population does matter: India has low usage per capita but is 3rd in overall usage.

If there were a climate crisis then I'd expect all the stops pulled out on building new nuclear power plants. That is because nuclear power is the lowest CO2 emitting energy source ever developed by humanity. The usual complaint to this is it takes too long to build a nuclear power plant. But we've seen nuclear power plants built in three years before. We did it once, we can do it again. We pour how ever much money is needed onto completing these power plants on time. Use that experience to learn how

Back in the day, a savage wit noted religion kept people behaving when nobody was looking.

I assume this modern political religion gives these people little positive strokes that they are doing good, whenever they hide the words of devils and demons.

Hello, Mr. Trump. Glad to see you join us. Too bad you had to post anonymously.

There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.

Who Pays for an Act of Cyberwar?

Microsoft EU Cloud Revisions Just So Happen To Exclude Google, Amazon

Houston, Tranquillity Base here. The Eagle has landed. -- Neil Armstrong