Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Cost of making the USA piss their pants: Pricel (Score 1) 375 375

Really, there's a legitimate argument here that Iran's nuclear program hasn't been a good idea in the long run, even when you consider the political power that comes with being nuclear armed. But you're just so over the top and blinded to the reality of the situation that I had to say something. Ease up on the kool-aid or you might get fooled into thinking the next pointless war is going to pay itself off in 3 months.

You've fought the good fight. But unfortunately, Karmashock is a loser with no life who spends all day pumping the internet full of long winded falsehoods. The only way to defeat him is to quit your job and go full time. But even then you will have a tough time keeping up with the manic pace of his illogical posts.

I nominate you for a Saint Jude medal.

Comment: Re: Cost of making the USA piss their pants: Price (Score 1) 375 375

I'm not trying to be cheeky but I don't understand why we still use the word 'atomic'. I thought we decided 'nuclear' was a better choice because all bombs can be said to be 'atomic' in nature.

You're asking the wrong idiot. Karmashock pronounces it "new cue lar".

Comment: Re:"as a means to raise awareness ..." (Score 1) 76 76

How do you know this, for a fact? The planet Earth could remain "lucky" for the rest of the life of the solar system.

Remain lucky? You've got to be kidding. The Earth has never been lucky. Giant space rocks have been hitting the Earth on a regular basis since it came into existence. What makes you think that will somehow magically change? Have we run out of asteroids already? The chance that the Earth will never again be hit by a large extraterrestrial body is so infinitesimal, that for all practical purposes it is zero.

So yes, it is inevitable that another giant space rock is going to fall out of the sky at some point.

Knowing of the risk of an asteroid impact during the 1600s, would you ask that they devote considerable resources to prevention?

What do you mean by "considerable"? Would 1% of one year's worth of the world's economic output in the 1600s be "considerable" in your mind? Does 1% meet your definition of "massive amounts of resources"?

Today, Gross World Product is currently around 75 trillion dollars per year. Let's say the cost to build and test an asteroid defense system is two billion dollars over ten years, or two hundred million dollars per year. Two hundred million dollars is what, 0.0002857% of yearly GWP? Have I got that right? Someone better check my math on that.

Assuming my math is correct, do you really think 0.0002857% of the world's economy for ten years would be so damaging that it would cause hardship for...well, anyone?

Comment: Re:Drone It (Score 1) 813 813

I can't think of a greater coward in military service than a drone pilot. Except maybe an ICBM crew.

You have a strange definition of coward".

Just because someone is in a military role that doesn't expose them to enemy fire doesn't make that person a coward. By your definition, every military force on earth has a large proportion of cowards in their service.

Comment: Re:"as a means to raise awareness ..." (Score 1) 76 76

Humanity would live through a similar impact today.

Ah, an optimist. Nothing wrong with hoping for the best, but it's foolish not to plan for the worst.

The survival of humanity is not the same as the survival of human civilization. Doing nothing may not cause human extinction, but it will certainly expose our civilization to great risk. And in this case, being prepared for the worst is a relatively low cost proposition when compared to the cost of re-building civilization from scratch.

Comment: Re:"as a means to raise awareness ..." (Score 1) 76 76

I just take reasonable precautions.

That's the difference between a rational fear and an irrational fear.

what reasonable precautions are we taking?

Scanning the sky. But not building large-enough rockets.

What makes you think that our current rockets aren't big enough, and what makes you think we're not currently building bigger ones?

In any event, you seem to think we're currently taking at least *one* reasonable precaution (scanning the sky). How many more precautions do we have to take before you'll no longer consider asteroid strikes to be "Yet Another Irrational Fear"? When we reach your magic number, would you then consider it appropriate to devote public money to the effort?

Comment: Re: Coral dies all the time (Score 1) 133 133

Very well... keep in mind that I'm arguing with like 20 people in this thread and you're apparently literally the only one that hasn't taken a side one way or the other.

I do try to avoid politically charged discussions, although I am sucked into them every once in a while. : )

and it is my position that the paper how many ever phases it has... is bullshit.

I certainly won't disagree with you on that point.


Comment: Re: Coral dies all the time (Score 1) 133 133

""I'm so very glad you pointed this out, because it perfectly illustrates why you should be reading, at a minimum, the paper's abstract: [] ""

quote from you. You're arguing his paper is not full of shit.


First, I was simply providing an example in support of Namarrgon's admonition to review source documents rather than strictly relying on popular media sources.

Second, I used the Cook abstract because it contained a citation YOU ASKED FOR.

Third, how anyone can claim with a straight face that this sentence: "I'm so very glad you pointed this out, because it perfectly illustrates why you should be reading, at a minimum, the paper's abstract:" represents an endorsement of the paper's conclusions is beyond me.

Perhaps your little break from this discussion wasn't long enough, because you're still not thinking very clearly.

Comment: Re: Coral dies all the time (Score 1) 133 133

Your paper is bullshit.

Is this supposed to be a reply to my post? I'm not defending any paper, I've not called anyone a "denier", and I don't care about someone's paper that wasn't accepted.

What I am doing is calling into question the claims of the author of the Forbes piece you cited.

I'm also challenging your apparent contempt for peer review. If there's a better way to get good science, you haven't identified it.

I'm also calling you out on your insinuation that scientific misconduct/fraud/sloppiness/whatever is rampant in climate science.

Finally, I'm supporting poster Namarrgon's advise on citing source documents whenever possible - instead of citing sources that have such a low signal to noise ratio, it's difficult to get to the underlying science.

What your incoherent ramblings above have to do with anything I've said is beyond me. Maybe you should take a break for a while.

Comment: Re: Coral dies all the time (Score 1) 133 133

You cited no link to this phase 1 versus phase 2.

I'm so very glad you pointed this out, because it perfectly illustrates why you should be reading, at a minimum, the paper's abstract:

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research."

The forbes article said nothing about it and neither did your subsequent citations.

Thereby demonstrating the folly of relying on opinion pieces written by lawyers masquerading as scientists to support your arguments.

Cite your source please.

See above.

Absent this information your argument boils down to ad hominem.

It comes as no surprise that you don't know what constitutes an ad hominem attack.

Comment: Re: Coral dies all the time (Score 1) 133 133

And yet it happened:

You either didn't read the Forbes article you linked to, or you didn't comprehend it.

The article's author, James Taylor, claims that the survey conducted by the paper's researchers didn't ask the right question:

As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics.

Taylor does also claim that the papers composing the data of phase I of the study were misclassified - but he relies solely on the analysis of "investigative journalists" at the crank site Popular Technology to support his position. Further, both Taylor and Popular Technology conveniently ignore the fact that phase II of the study had the authors of the papers self-classify.

As an aside, pointing to an opinion piece on Forbes written by James Taylor, a lawyer at the Heartland Institute, hardly lends weight to ANY argument. Mr. Taylor claims to be a "scientist by training" because "I successfully completed Ivy League atmospheric science courses". His employer, Heartland Institute, has likened climate scientists to Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, murderer Charles Manson and Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.

Also this notion that peer review catches all frauds is laughable:


NOBODY said the peer review process is perfect. But as GP correctly states, it's the best we've got. You seem to think that just because some academic fraud exists, that it's therefore having a substantial impact on climate science. That's a pretty extraordinary anything to back it up?

As to your point about reading the abstracts. That's not enough. You need to actually have the study itself vetted. And peer review does not do that.

That's not what GP was saying. Jesus. Namarrgon is saying that before YOU or some other guy on the internet starts pontificating about this or that scientific research, YOU should at least read the abstract of said research. But since you're happy to rely on opinion pieces and pop science articles that are chock full of hyperbole and distortion, I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that Namarrgon's wise advice is falling on deaf ears. At least in your case.

And that is frequently what is going on.

According to who? You? On what credible data do you base that extraordinary claim? Another James Taylor opinion piece in Forbes?

Comment: Re:sigh... (Score 1) 939 939

No one should have been bailed out - including the homeowners.

That's debatable. In any case, the fact remains that the big banks WERE bailed out, and everyday homeowners were left hung out to dry.

PopeRatzo's observation that banks/homeowners could have been bailed out together for the same amount (or less) than bailing out the banks alone has merit.

Bailing out homeowners rewards those who bought when they shouldn't and does nothing but build resentment for those of us that rented until we could afford to buy.

Your resentments aside, you seem to absolve the banks of their responsibility in the mortgage fiasco and lay the blame on those that took out loans they couldn't afford. Thing is, it used to be that no matter how stupid the lendee was, a bank loan officer would deny a loan if there wasn't convincing evidence that the lendee could meet the obligations of the loan. For some reason, banks didn't do that anymore. Why do you think that happened?

Philosophy: A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing. -- Ambrose Bierce