Sorry you feel that way. But if you look at my account I've been active since 2009, rather dedicated for an astroturfing account.

The truth is the track record on the F-35 is little different than any other post-cold war weapons program. They are always over budget and behind schedule.

F-22: Too slow, no air to ground, too expensive, stealth not proven, too little armament, no competitor for it to face, cold war relic, etc. Orders dropped from 750 to 195. Now people are proposing to buy more of them instead of the F-35.

B-2: Stealth not proven, too slow, too expensive, hangar queen, poor handling, etc. Orders dropped from 132 to 21. Now it's heralded as a sign of American military power.

Elements of Power: http://elementsofpower.blogspot.ca/2013/08/f-35-critics-same-sht-different-century.html Does a great job comparing the complaints about the F-35 to complaints made about the F-15.

It's always the same nonsense, complaining about specs that don't matter in modern combat, ignoring improvements to things that do matter, offering no alternative, complain about cost.

I can't think of any good reason to do it other than the coolness factor.

I think the implicit assumption is one of: we're going to completely fsck up this planet and have to leave, something else is going to threaten to fsck up this planet (and we'll have to leave), or we're going to outgrow and want to be elsewhere.

Do I think it likely we could pull it off (or even have the resources)? That I'm skeptical of.

I'm sorry, I just read through that paper, and nowhere in it does it say that a decline in Antarctic ice is a forecast of AGW. That's one of the worst examples of "proof by ghost reference" I've ever seen. Not to mention that the paper is mainly focused on the Antarctic Peninsula, the one place that actually gets melt on more than super-rare occasions and juts into a different climate zone.

Ah yes more F-35 hate.

Claim the costs are increasing, except the price per plane is decreasing. Check.

Faux outrage at the $1 trillion price tag that has been part of the plan for decades and pays for R&D for 3 new fighters, a purchase order for ~2,500 aircraft, plus maintenance and training for 55 years. Check.

Complain that it has a part built in every state, just like every other military project in the last 50 years. Check.

Unfortunately the authors forgot to mention how important dog fighting is to a strike fighter. Also passed up the opportunity to talk about how we are not sure if stealth actually works. I mean, the least they could do is compare it to the F-16 using clean specs and a non-inflation adjusted price from the 80s.

Standard cheap-shots on the costs, but weak follow through on "manoeuvrability problems". I'll give it a 6/10.

A sole proprietorship or partnership has unlimited liability which certainly makes it more difficult (though not impossible) to raise funds or start new businesses. Under current rules a corporation has single liability which both reduces total liability and more importantly makes it quantifiable. Double liability raises the liability cap without throwing out the quantifiable part. Under that scenario reactor funding would be slighty more expensive and the shareholders would doubtless demand extra safety measures but it would hardly kill the entire industry. Frankly, I think we should move to double liability for all shares of stock, but that's a different conversation altogether.

Compared to the known problems with coal, I think it's a worthy trade off and a manageable risk, but perhaps you'd prefer to demand perfection instead of incremental improvement and keep burning coal for the next 50-100 years while we figure out Fusion. I'm sure the coral reefs will thank you for the continued acidification.

Why does this guy have so many dedicated fans?

You're the guys who have this whole fictionalized "al gore obsession" where you pretend there's a cult of personality. You don't actually need to have one over Watt. He's just one shithead. Let it go.

Here's your Liar cite promised that a new examination was neutral and he'd base his views on that.

Immediately rejected it when it showed the scientific consensus. He's a liar. Established.

Shilling established

Now will you PLEASE stop defending this scum?

First of all, I am not talking about blackouts, I am discussing other issues.

Second of all, the only reason so little storage is needed is because we use fossil fuels to store the energy. Among other things. In places where they use hydroelectric, they have a choice - set their water usage to prevent blackouts, or routinely raise it and lower it creating water flows that are incredibly bad for wildlife.

Yeah, see, we are eventually going to come take your stupid wasteful shit. And you won't do anything, because the only dog you have in this fight is that you don't want to acknowledge how wrong you are and how you're harming the future.

Your reaction to cognitive dissonance isn't my problem.

Your lack of understanding here doesn't mean shit.

An example of hypothesis here, say that carbon dioxide absorbs the primary spectra of light that radiate from the earth as kinetic energy, is easily proven in a lab with easily acquired equipment.

The primary inference of that and other hypotheses that you're pretending is up for debate has been so thoroughly demonstrated through both direct observational evidence and predictive modeling based experiments, that it's accepted by experts throughout virtually the entire applicable field.

It's not anyone's fault but your own that you see applying predictive value from existing theories, and corroborating that with real world observational evidence as anything other than normal scientific application.

There is no standing null hypothesis to the idea that the earth is rapidly warming due to CO2, there are a couple of alternate assertions about the cause of observationally higher temperatures that technically have some scientific basis, but none of them have anything approaching the respectability de facto scientific understanding that the earth is retaining more heat than ever before.

The fact that you don't even begin to understand the philosophy of science isn't a reason global warming "is bullshit" it's a poor reflection on your own character.

Let me repeat, you don't even understand how science works. And you should start learning somewhere.

A complex well-established theory is not the same as a hypothesis, and you should either learn the difference, or not pretend to understand.

There is a pretty straightforward market based solution to that sort of problem, double liability. It was used in the past when we had a more private banking system to ensure that institutions and shareholders would take risk seriously. Combined with moving to Gen III and newer reactor designs the overall problem should be quite manageable for the 100 years or so we need till Fusion is widely deployed.

Go right ahead and point me to where a decline in Antarctic ice was a forecast of AGW.

You do know that - below freezing - there's an inverse correlation between temperature and snowfall, don't you? And I really hope you know that it's very rare that temperatures rise above freezing in the vast majority of Antarctica, whether you add a couple degrees to the temperature or not, right? Or did you not know / ever consider that?

Just because you didn't realize something that should have been really bloody obvious to you doesn't mean it was a scientific prediction by your straw-man scientists.

The 5th amendment has certain loopholes.

One of them is it only applies in the United States, not in the United Kingdom. duh.

Another is that if you agree to give up your right (i.e. offer a password), then you can be punished for lying about it (i.e. offering a false password).

Even if that were true there are plenty of other externalized costs for coal. Here is a short list: Health problems caused by coal dust and fly ash, radioactive carbon-14 being spewed all over the place, atrocious mining practices that pretty much destroy the entire area, mercury pollution and sulfur dioxide emissions just to name a few.

True, there are no completely clean power sources but coal is pretty much the worst. The correct answer would be to create an externalized costs tax and apply it to all sources of power generation based on their various impacts then let the market sort it out.