Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:So it was the 1950's PATRIOT ACT (Score 1) 308

Because short of the martial law of troops in the streets with body armor and M16's..... Oh wait... Our COPS have those now.
Well they dont have assult vehicles...... Wait....
Nor do they have grenade launchers...... Welll.....

So basically they have been planning on the shit we have today for decades?

Well yeah. You don't throw frogs into boiling water. They jump. You have to put them in the water and then slowly turn up the heat..

Comment: Re:Yep it is a scam (Score 1) 666

by Xyrus (#48873097) Attached to: US Senate Set To Vote On Whether Climate Change Is a Hoax

Funny thing is that the summary directly contradicts the title. The democrats are attaching riders to the Keystone XL bill that declare climate change caused by man a fact. This is just as bad, but done by the other side of the aisle.


All we need is for congress to start wearing sponsorship badges like NASCAR and drinking Brawndo. Idiocracy here we come.

Comment: Re:Yep it is a scam (Score 4, Funny) 666

by Xyrus (#48873085) Attached to: US Senate Set To Vote On Whether Climate Change Is a Hoax

I like how everyone assumes not only that a supreme being exists, but also that it has a penis.

Of course god has a penis. Read the old testament. Only something with a penis could be deliberately that childish, evil, and destructive and not only expect people to be happy about it, but also people to worship the ground he walks on.

Comment: Re:call me skeptical (Score 1) 360

by Xyrus (#48838623) Attached to: NASA, NOAA: 2014 Was the Warmest Year In the Modern Record

Yeah, the problem with the idea that it's "overnight" is that scientists have been warning about this stuff since before I was in elementary school...

They've been warning about this stuff since before you're grandparents were born. The first predictions of anthropogenic global warming date back to the late 1800's. It's certainly not a "new" concept.

Comment: Re:Is it just me... (Score 1) 496

by Xyrus (#48802391) Attached to: Ted Cruz To Oversee NASA and US Science Programs

Also, explain to this Canadian why NASA is researching climate. Isn't NOAA supposed to be the agency for that?

When I worked at a US Geological Survey office that also archives all the US Govt satellite and aerial imagery, there was a memo that was sent out around 1993 or so. All research projects had to show how they were helping the study of global climate change. If they didn't, they were candidates for having their funding cut. The only exceptions were the ones that were being paid by external agencies or governments. So NASA is researching it for the same reason other agencies are: they have some expertise that can be useful and the funding keeps other projects alive.

What utter crap. NASA receives funding for research because they build, launch, and maintain the satellites used for research. This includes weather, climate, and space research.

Comment: Re:On the other hand... (Score 1) 786

by Xyrus (#48786925) Attached to: Michael Mann: Swiftboating Comes To Science

In other words, the models don't work at all, what is the excuse that the rubes will buy so we can keep draining science funds for a few more years?

Where did you learn your thermodynamics and modeling? Fox News?

Almost all the additional energy the Earth is absorbing is going into the oceans. You know, the gigantic heat sink covering 75% of the Earth's surface. Surface temperatures are just a small part in the overall energy balance of the planet.

Models are focused on long term multi-decadal averages. As such, they don't have nearly as much "noise" as reality does. If you ever bothered looking at a calibration run of a model, you'll see it over-predicts at some points and under-predicts at others. However, the long term trend (which is what they're looking at) is up, and matches what the long term observational record is showing.

All models are wrong. Some are useful.

Comment: Re:noooo (Score 1) 560

by Xyrus (#48721663) Attached to: 2014: Hottest Year On Record

And, at the same time, it was the coldest year in Chicago's recorded history. Who knew?

Well, yes, because "global" warming isn't really global - a global average is kind of meaningless for determining the local effects in any given region.

The problem I have with global climate change "debate" is not that climate is changing, but that there is an assumption that the net effect will be negative.

The net effect will be negative. Until the climate stabilizes and life adjusts to the new system, there will be significant disruptions. Historically, changes as small as plus or minus 2C have had significant repercussions, including extinction events. There's approximately 7 billion people on the planet who have relied on the existing climate norms to survive, the vast majority of which do not have advanced technology. As a species we can adapt, but it won't be without costs.

Furthermore, it is ignorant to claim that some regions will become more habitable. Just because conditions won't be uncomfortable to live in (by human standards) absolutely does not guarantee that the region can actually SUSTAIN human habitation. For example, you may hear the argument that warmer temperatures mean we can farm further north. That's pure nonsense. Our crops are adapted to the regions they're grown in, including the day-night cycles. And while regions may attain temperatures and even rainfall to support crops, it doesn't do any good if your landscape is barren granite and former tundra (e.g. Canadian Shield).

It's not simply about temperature. It's about being able to sustain human habitation. If current growing regions become deserts, you can't simply move it to a new region. If your city's primary water source is from glaciers that suddenly are melting out, your not simply going to pick it up and move it somewhere else.

Can we adapt? Sure. Will it be easy? No. Will it be cheap? No.

I'm disappointed that more studies haven't shown which will prevail (or if there will be a net neutral effect).

There are plenty that you can find with a simple google search. Probably the most comprehensive summary is in the IPCC reports.

Instead we just get fear mongering about famine and war.

Only the media and some fringe enviro-wackos are doing any fear mongering. The science just shows the actions and consequences. That being said, famine and war are logical conclusions in a changing climate. Resource wars are nothing new, and a changing climate with an increasing population is just more fuel for the fire.

Also, I still believe the focus is on the wrong thing: rather than try and stop climate change (after all, if it doesn't change because of CO2, it may change due to something else) we should try and work on technologies so we can survive - no, thrive - regardless of the climate. (Isn't that what humanity has done for most of its existence anyway?)

Obviously you haven't been paying attention. Stop climate change? That idea went out the window quite some time ago. It's all about adaptation and mitigation now. We don't have the technology (nor worldwide political will) to stop climate change at this point, as we would need to stop all carbon emissions as well as sequester a significant portion of the carbon we already added to the atmosphere.

Comment: Re:Wrong way of thinking. (Score 1) 628

by Xyrus (#48646851) Attached to: What Happens To Society When Robots Replace Workers?

You're right, because it is impossible for every player in the market to have perfect knowledge. Not only that, but since there is no regulation in a free market there is nothing stopping people from withholding such information in a effort to make more profits for themselves. Once that happens, money starts flowing to those who happen to make decisions about the market and/or big boys who can manipulate the market and crush competitors. Eventually you wind up with a self-destructive cycle where the few who have managed to turn into monopolies and oligopolies destroy the whole market in the attempt to turn it into there own personal money making machine while everyone else gets screwed.

People are greedy assholes. Too much freedom (free markets) or too little freedom (communism) in the market will always result in a corrupted economic system that will end up shitting on 99%+ of the population. Moderation in all things.

Comment: Re:Psychologically speaking... (Score 1) 286

by Xyrus (#48638831) Attached to: At 40, a person is ...

This is why we reincarnate, I think. Because the accumulation of knowledge is super-important and fun, but not knowing and flailing around in a genuine passion is also pretty awesome. -Youthful ignorance is not something you can pretend or recreate. And ignorance isn't the Bliss. Ignorance is like a sheet of bubble wrap. The Bliss is having bubbles to pop, and popping them!

Your first world priviliged blinders are on so tight I think they gave you brain damage. Even today, most of the world's child population isn't living in anything like bliss and are far more concerned with when's the next time they're going to eat as opposed to imagining all the "possibilities".

Historically speaking, it has only been in the last 100 years or so where more than a small fraction of a percent of the populace would call life "fun", regardless of age. For most of human history, almost everyone lived miserable lives in filth and poverty with insanely high mortality rates. You were always one disease, infection, or injury away from death (assuming you even survived childbirth). Life was a continuous daily struggle, and if you made it past thirty you were pretty damn lucky. Youthful ignorance, more often than not, got you killed.

But none of that registers since you live in a nice, safe, first world country where ignorance gets an "awww so cute" vs. "well he's dead, good thing we have 5 more".

Whatever makes you happy, but ignoring the mathematical implausibility of reincarnation, your argument for reincarnation is pretty ridiculous.

Comment: Re:I deny that San Francisco underwater by 2010 (Score 2) 719

by Xyrus (#48637315) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'

I suppose I'm a global warming denier, by the common standard here on Slashdot. The global warming alarmists and pitchmen said "San Francisco will be underwater by 2010". Unfortunately, it's still there.

No, you're not a denier. You're just regular old run-of-the-mill stupid. I can't even find a denialist bullshit opinion blog where this lie comes from, let alone any credible source.

That's one of two big problems for the global warming camp.

You're right. Deniers are completely ignorant and just make shit up to validate their ideology. That's a big problem for actual scientists and logical people trying to determine the best course of action to take.

Well-known leaders of that movement have publicly admitted to organized, widespread lying and intentional exaggeration in order to "spur the public to action".

Leaders? The climate science community doesn't have "leaders". In the public space, there are activists but they are not scientists, nor do they do any scientific research. They're talking heads. Some do more fact checking than others, but none of them have credentials to objectively discuss the science, let alone judge it's merits.

I deny that they've been telling the truth, and they agree! Has the "science" gotten any better? Well, we know that a typical volcano releases a couple tons of CO2 each day. A few months ago, there was an "OMG Global Warming!" story here on Slashdot that reported atmospheric CO2 levels rising more than expected - based on measuring CO2 on a friggin a volcano! Which is kind of like reporting global average humidity based on moisture measurements taken below Niagra Falls.

More idiocy. You have absolutely no idea what your talking about. Regardless of the information actually posted on the how measurements are collected and used, you're just going to ignore it because the science is just to damn inconvenient to your personal beliefs.

There IS some good science supporting global warming, but the alarmist stuff makes better headlines, so 90% of the "science" reported is complete junk, obviously so.

The papers and research are directly available, along with the data sets and model code in most cases. News sites are probably the worst way to actually get information about what's happening in science (with the exception of stupidity strewn sites like OverUnity and WUWT).

I reject all claims based on this utter junk pseudo-science.

There is nothing pseudo about the science. The climate research that leads to a global warming result is nearly 200 years old, beginning with Fourier (yes THAT Fourier) back in the early 1800s. Your willful ignorance doesn't make the science go away.

The second problem is more recent. Every president has their slush fund...

Another conspiracy theory argument coming from a denier. Why am I not surprised?

When you actually have some facts and evidence to back up your ludicrous claims, let us know. kthxbye Sincerely, The Climate Illuminati est. 1798

Comment: Re:Denying Catastrophism, not Science (Score 3, Informative) 719

by Xyrus (#48637075) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'

When you actually look at the science itself, it's pretty clear. And nowhere near what the proponents claim.

For that matter, when you look at the history of AGW catastrophism, you see a lot of, well, denial.

No credible scientists is predicting the end of the world. Nor have the ever done so. Our actions have consequences. The consequences are going to cause problems. That's it.

By the people whose predictions failed miserably. So far we have NOT seen an increase in the number and size of hurricanes.

I guess you don't read, or have really poor comprehension skills. The latest IPCC report indicates that BY THE END OF THIS CENTURY (that is, 2100) that Atlantic hurricanes will decrease in number but increase in strength. Pacific hurricances (typhoons) are expected to increase in number and increase in strength. Seeing as how we are a long ways away from 2100 and these projections were made just few years ago, your claim is completely unsupported.

We have also NOT seen an increase in droughts

Again, the projections are for the END OF THIS CENTURY. Your claim is unsupported.

an increase in tornado numbers or strength

The climatology of tornadoes is not mentioned in any credible research I'm aware of. Mesoscale cyclone generation is far to small to be picked up with any reasonable skill in climate models. Straight from the IPCC report There is insufficient evidence to determine whether trends exist in small scale phenomena such as tornadoes, hail, lighting, and dust storms.

a decrease in winter snow

Actually, snow cover is supposed to increase then decrease by the end of the century. The increase in snow is a result of increased water vapor. The water vapor increase will be felt before the temperatures become warm enough to decrease overall snow cover. But again, the decrease is by 2100.

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of events that were predicted as part of CAGW that have not happened (and in many cases, the reverse has come to pass).

Complete bullshit. Climatological projections are for decades into the future. You're not going to see changes in span of a handful of years. Go ahead and try to find a peer reviewed research paper that we are supposed to have any statistically significant deviations on a sub decadal scale. You won't find one.

We still have a fairly icy polar ice cap (the "sciency" prediction from just a few years back was that it would effectively be gone by now).

Bullshit. The modelling consensus in the reviewed literature has a projection that the arctic will have an ice free summer by 2050. Some models have this happening by 2035. But not a single credible reviewed source has ever made any claim that the arctic would have an ice free summer by now.

We're also about 0.1 C below the low-end value of over 95% of predictions for global temperatures (and 0.5 C below the "most probable" number). That in itself invalidates CAGW as a scientific theory.

Bullshit. Your ignoring short term weather impacts on global temperatures as well as ignoring oceanic heat content and simply looking at surface temperature. Again, if you read the section in the IPCC on how the models work and what the projections actually represent.

But of course, you're already ignoring the fact that climatological significance is measured over multi-decadal periods so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Yes, the Earth has warmed. Yes, some of it has been due to CO2 increases by humans. But the amount - and the results - are both badly blown predictions.

Only if your completely ignorant on the topic, which you have shown yourself to be.

That means that the followers of CAGW are, by and large, denying science because it didn't give them the result they wanted.

Why the fuck would anyone want global warming to happen?

Comment: Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score 3, Insightful) 719

by Xyrus (#48636653) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'

You're really broadly generalizing though. Denying one controversial subject doesn't mean someone denies all science. Skepticism is a healthy attribute, it indicates critical thinking, and an open mind.

A skeptic may be ignorant, but is willing to learn. A real skeptic, upon gaining knowledge, will be able to more effectively question and argue the subject.

A denier is willfully ignorant and will never learn as a result. They can never effectively question or argue the subject because they are always arguing from a point of ignorance. You also can not convince them no matter how much evidence you have since they automatically dismiss anything that contradicts their ignorant views.

I have no problem with evolution or Darwin whatsoever, believe solar power will be a fantastic resource when it matures, would like to eventually see an end to use of fossil fuels as soon as it becomes economically feasible to do so, am skeptical of religion (IMO religion is conveniently pre-packaged cereal box spirituality /philosophy at best); and think creationism is a fairy tale;

All good and logical, but...

but whereas AGW is concerned, I'm skeptical (but open minded) because of all the politics and hypocrisy that surrounds it. Al Gore and friends drone on and on about the dangers of carbon dioxide and man's apocalyptic effect on the planet, then all go fly their fuel-hog private personal jets to a summit to discuss it.

And just like that, you go from skeptic to denier. Instead of ignoring the talking heads and cheer leaders and going right to the science (thousands of papers, petabytes of research), you latch on to it and then paint the entire scientific community (which has absolutely nothing to do with the politics or Al Gore) with the same brush.

Al Gore is not a climate scientist. Neither is Leonardo DiCaprio. They aren't. They don't have degrees in climate science. They've never published peer reviewed research on the subject.

As for the politics, that's policy makers. That's congress. Again, this has nothing to do with the science community. Congress does not approve papers, and the science community does not approve policy decisions.

The average rank and file climate scientist makes around $70K a year. Most programmer pull down more than that, and they don't need a Ph. D to do it. This "fly all over the place in private jets" bullshit is just that, bullshit. When I was working at NASA, the parking lots weren't full of shiny new Jags and BMWs. They were full of 10 year old Toyotas and Hondas. You don't become a climate scientists to get rich.

No respectable climate science I know of is predicting the end of the world, nor am I aware of any published research (including the IPCC reports) making any claims that global warming will kill of humanity. Again, that is simply more denial bullshit dredged up as an excuse to not listen to the science.

Same is true of Gore's personal practices (i.e. his house), he seems very unconcerned in practice about those things which he champions in print or video. Such a strong proponent is expected to lead by example. The UN says AGW is critical to address, yet China hasn't had to abide by any accords, being probably the worst pollution offender currently on the planet.

"They're not doing it so why do we have to?" This is a really poor excuse, again often used by deniers for some twisted justification for their thinking.

Additionally, all climate and weather forecasts, whether next weekend or 100 years from now, despite the differences, are based on computer models, which are far from infallible.

Another denier argument. All models are far from infallible. They're models; an imperfect representation and they always will be since, at least in this universe, since it is impossible to obtain perfect information about a system. The aerodynamic models for jet aircraft are wrong. The models for bridge and building stability are wrong. Every single one of them are wrong.

However, just because a model is wrong doesn't mean it isn't useful. All models have errors, and by accounting for those errors a model will still yield predictive skill. Error analysis is very important in modeling and is used constantly to establish everything from structural integrity limits to likelihoods of future droughts. It's a fundamental component of numerical analysis.

For these reasons, I'm still skeptical

No, you're a denier. You have not put forward a single objective argument to establish your position. Heresay, politics, and ignorance are NOT valid skeptical arguments. You have not brought up a single salient critique of the SCIENCE.

however, I'm not unable to be swayed, given further evidence that isn't dressed up with carbon taxes and other political aspects;

I find this highly unlikely. You've thrown out approximately 200 years of physics, chemistry, and research because you don't agree with what some activists and politicians are saying and doing. That, my friend, is exactly what deniers do. It doesn't matter if their claims violate the fundamental laws of thermodynamics. It doesn't matter if their claims contradict direct observational data.

Denier: Al Gore has a jet. This renders your argument invalid.

additionally, it sure would help if all the celebrities endorsing the tenant of AGW actually practiced what they preached.

How does this even remotely have anything to do with science research? The fact that your even letting celebrities influence your perception of the science demonstrates that you are NOT a skeptic. At all.

Science is a process, a living, dynamic, self-correcting process. It must never be wielded as dogma.

It isn't, and only deniers think that it is

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke