Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:I'll go ahead and say it (Score 1) 200

by Sparticus789 (#44639283) Attached to: China Plans To Stop Harvesting Organs From Executed Prisoners

Since you want to be extremely precise:

1st degree murder
Aggravated rape. This doesn't exist as a crime in all states, but it would essentially entail any forcible sexual contact where the victim was not just sexually assaulted, but physically assaulted. There is a extensive, complicated legal definition which sets a very high standard for this crime to occur. So think of it like attempted murder + rape.
Torture
Genocide
Being an accessory to any of the above.

Comment: Re:What to do? Some science, please. (Score 2) 510

by Sparticus789 (#44631071) Attached to: International Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty On Warming

My problem is with the flawed "scientific method" used by environmentalists to justify their actions. They can't get their agenda by popular vote, so they file lawsuits and make an unelected government official enact legislation through judicial diktat. Meanwhile, these same environmentalists have 10,000 square foot mansions, fly in private planes, drive armored Hummers, etc.

Comment: Re:What to do? Some science, please. (Score 2) 510

by Sparticus789 (#44630559) Attached to: International Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty On Warming

My issue here is that environmentalists are more concerned with their so-called "proven science" than they are with the impact on people's lives and the actual effects of their "solutions".

I am from the Central Valley in California, where the Delta Smelt has reduced the available water supply to farmers by 90%. The entire region is in the middle of a drought and bordering on dust bowl. Hundreds of thousands of acres sit unused, covered in tumbleweeds, with the families in poverty because there is no water for them to plant anything and make a living. 5,000 lost jobs seems like a small number, until you consider the agricultural area impacted by these insane policies only has a population of ~250,000.

Then to add insult to injuries, the residents of Los Angeles still have water for their finely manicured lawns.

Comment: Re:What to do? Some science, please. (Score 1) 510

by Sparticus789 (#44630007) Attached to: International Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty On Warming

Did you notice the "=>" sign? That means greater than or equal too. You have proven my point, by saying that water vapor can double the climate warming caused by CO2. Water vapor is a catalyst to global warming. But I do not see the AGW crowd trying to prevent ocean waves from crashing into the coast, releasing water vapor into the atmosphere.

Comment: Re:What to do? Some science, please. (Score 2) 510

by Sparticus789 (#44629973) Attached to: International Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty On Warming

Methane is not discussed because it is not politically convenient. It is easier to demonize some power company burning coal making EVIL profits than it is to demonize some rancher in New Mexico whose family has been raising cattle on that land for 150 years and 100% depend on raising cattle to support themselves and their families. Now, if the same man-made global warming crowd had stock or patents in the fields of lab-grown beef or genetically modified cows with reduced methane emissions, they would be clamoring for the end of cattle farming.

Comment: Re:What to do? Some science, please. (Score 1, Insightful) 510

by Sparticus789 (#44629317) Attached to: International Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty On Warming

Water vapor and methane are both greenhouse gases. Both have a => effect on the greenhouse effect when compared to CO2. But the Global Warming crowd only focuses on CO2 because it is politically convenient for them. Meaning they own solar/wind companies and want to profit greatly from government subsidies.

There's got to be more to life than compile-and-go.

Working...