Forgot your password?

typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Pollution not a valid argument for the left (Score 1) 531

by MacDork (#40190811) Attached to: Scientific Literacy vs. Concern Over Climate Change

Plants need CO2 to live. CO2 + H2O + Sunlight == glucose. Your CO2 is waste to you. It's mana from heaven for plants. Global warmers are some of the most scientifically and agriculturally illiterate people I've ever encountered

Plants also love shit. And yet somehow this fertilizing mana from heaven is considered pollution. PARADOX. We even have laws preventing people from dumping raw sewage into public waterway for some sort of environmental reason.

And again, evidence the article is correct... You don't know shit. Shit isn't the problem. The pathogens in the shit are the problem. Shit doesn't give you cholorea, the pathogens do.

Comment: Re:Pollution not a valid argument for the left (Score 1) 531

by MacDork (#40151337) Attached to: Scientific Literacy vs. Concern Over Climate Change

The reason being, CO2 is NOT POLLUTION.

Our metabolism produces CO2 as a waste product which we expel from our bodies. Same thing with urine. And while you can drink a little bit of urine and be fine (just look at Bear Grylls), and you can breath a little CO2 and be fine, it's clearly crazy to say that emitting CO2 into the atmosphere is not pollution. What if I peed in a drinking water cistern that feeds your neighborhood? It's only a little, it won't hurt you, therefore it's not pollution. According to you.

Plants need CO2 to live. CO2 + H2O + Sunlight == glucose. Your CO2 is waste to you. It's mana from heaven for plants. Global warmers are some of the most scientifically and agriculturally illiterate people I've ever encountered... as TFA states. Thank you AC (and mods stupid enough to mod this up) for proving the point of the article.

Politics

Prominent Environmentals Changes Opinion On Climate-> 1

Submitted by MacDork
MacDork writes "Dr James Lovelock, author of "The Revenge Of Gaia," no longer claims IPCC computer model predictions are inevitable. Once a man who preached runaway global warming, he has since tempered his opinions. He states in an interview, "There's no great certainty about what the future is going to be so legislation based on green pressure to say 'in 2050 the temperature will be so much' is not really very good science at all." This stands in stark contrast to radicals in government claiming climate change is a national security issue."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:AGW ? (Score 1) 397

by MacDork (#39904973) Attached to: Panetta Labels Climate Change a National Security Threat

This could well render California's wine industry economically unsustainable with only a few degrees change

So one state's booze production qualifies as a national security issue? Ha ha, that's rich! :D 'Mericaaa FUCK YEAH!

Also how do you like hurricanes? Because increased surface temperature and sea level moisture directly drive stronger storms in the American "hurricane ally"

The world's leading predictor of hurricanes, Dr. William Gray has his well educated opinion. You have yours. Hmmm, a Ph.D who has been accurately predicting hurricane frequency and intensity for decades... or some AC preaching about disease, famine, and plagues of locutus? Sorry mate, but you sound a bit religious to me.

So allow me to pull a play out of the climate cult's playbook. Coorelation equals causation: In this graph we show the last 10000 years of human population. And in this one we show the global mean temperature over the same period. Population increases with temperature, therefore we can conclude warmer weather is resulting in more people. Obviously, there's no flaw in the logic, and we have a consensus among scientists regarding these two facts. So it is true. Global warming is good for the human race. Any argument about this point means you are a "denier."

Care to argue? Of course you do. That's the stupidest thing anyone has ever said. Yet, if you exchange population with CO2, it is the exact argument you are presenting.

It blows my mind how many people believe warming is such a dangerous thing. Far more people are killed by the cold each year. Give me warming any day.

Comment: Re:Why does Apple hate America? (Score 1) 599

by MacDork (#39835721) Attached to: How Apple Sidesteps Billions In Global Taxes

You are cherry picking numbers. Married couples pay at a much lower tax rate. Worldwide? When did that excuse Apple for shirking tax responsiblilty here at home? The corporate tax rate in the US is 35% at that income level.

It's a legitimate question. Do you really think Apple should pay less than 10% in federal taxes on $34,000,000,000 in profits while someone struggling to get by on $50,000 pays 25%?

Comment: Re:I bet T-Mobile is following Free Mobile in Fran (Score 3, Informative) 355

by MacDork (#39312427) Attached to: T-Mobile Exec Calls For End To Cell Phone Subsidies

T-Mo is doing that. Their $30/mo prepaid plan is pretty sweet. 100 minutes, unlimited text, unlimited data. The only catch is the first 5GB is at 4G speeds. After that, you may be throttled to EDGE. So there's only 100 minutes... who needs minutes with an android + free calls with Google voice?

As far as I'm concerned, it's the best thing to happen to the price of internet access since AOL's $19.95/mo flat rate.

Comment: Re:Apple is killing text messaging (Score 2) 355

by MacDork (#39312285) Attached to: T-Mobile Exec Calls For End To Cell Phone Subsidies

It works seamlessly to those using an iPhone. To everyone else, it seems really stupid that you are sending text messages that show up as multimedia files. To anyone on an android phone, you are sending a picture of your text message. It is typical that an iPhone user would not know that though.

I don't care.

;-)

Short people get rained on last.

Working...