Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Huh? [Re:Is that all?] (Score -1) 629

What sort of apologist BS are you trying to pass off here? Federal government spending is completely out of control. From Dave Ramsey . What would happen if John Q. Public and his wife called my show with these kinds of numbers? Hereâ(TM)s how their financial situation would stack up: If their household income was $55,000 per year, theyd actually be spending $96,500â"$41,500 more than they made! That means theyre spending 175% of their annual income! So, in 2011 theyd add $41,500 of debt to their current credit card debt of $366,000!

Comment: Re:Moderation system (Score -1) 763

by arcticinfantry (#37633614) Attached to: Help Shape the Future of Slashdot
I agree. To me, the best thing to counteract group think would be to a bi-valence of scores. There are many occasion I only want to see the 0's and 1's on a story as that's where I think the most relevant and insightful comments are. It's not easy to do in the current system. Having a "flip" to turn 5's into 0's, 4's into 1's, etc. would make the site more useful to both sides of a polarizing issue.

Comment: Re:Huh? (Score -1) 300

by arcticinfantry (#36820558) Attached to: Climate Scientists Ask For Help Fighting Somali Pirates

Climate scientists have moved beyond whether CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming. You can read the signature of CO2 capturing radiant energy in the spectrum of the planet. I have read the IPCC AR4 Working Group I Summary for Policy Makers. What's your point? You don't like the way they're simplifying the uncertainty for non-scientists? If they can't be virtually certain about something but only consider it very likely we can ignore the risk? Science doesn't work in absolutes (except zero).

The WG1 report is all about the science and doesn't get into danger, it's Working Group II where that part comes in. That's where they examine the probable effects of global warming.

LOL!! So they're "simplifying uncertainty"? And "that's how science works"? The summary for policy makers is marketing speak, *not* science and you're either ignorant of what real science is or fooling yourself. Which is it? Which one of the values above represents "settled science"? I think the only thing that is settled is that it's going to get slightly warmer, and that prediction is seriously in doubt. When do we get to call the IPCC out on the failures of their "Climate Scenarios"? (they're not brave enough for predictions). Or is that something we'll just sweep under the rug because it doesn't empower unscrupulous scientists and crooked bureaucrats and politicians? Oh yeah Working Group II. Thanks for mentioning that. That's where they predict the Himalayan Glaciers will melt by 2030 right?

Comment: Re:Huh? (Score -1) 300

by arcticinfantry (#36796310) Attached to: Climate Scientists Ask For Help Fighting Somali Pirates
Try studying up on the scientific method. It's up to the Climate "Scientists" (i use that term very loosely) to prove that CO2 causes dangerous warming. About as close to real evidence you'll get is in the latest IPCC report where confidence is danced about with terms like ... "In this Summary for Policymakers, the following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood, using expert judgement, of an outcome or a result: Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence, Extremely likely > 95%, Very likely > 90%, Likely > 66%, More likely than not > 50%, Unlikely 33%, Very unlikely 10%, Extremely unlikely 5% (see Box TS.1 for more details)." Read it for yourself with an open mind. The notion of catastrophic man made global warming has *nothing* to back it up. www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

Comment: Re:Experts (Score 1) 875

by arcticinfantry (#32273926) Attached to: National Academy of Science Urges Carbon Tax
Sorry for the double post, but your attitude (which seems to be quite popular at /. ) is one of extreme gullibility. You completely trust not only the scientists, but the bureaucrats, lobbiests and bankers who are sure that sending a torrent of money their way will solve the warming problem that will arrive in 100 years. LOL!!! Truly a naive position if ever there was one. What is scientific about the AGW hypothesis? *NOTHING*. It's some untestable models and some really bad statistics with a million "rider grants" that want to make sure they get funded. Those models haven't gotten the last 10 years right until *this* year. What does that say for any confidence that should be had in this travesty of pseudo-science, lobbying, environmentalism and socialsim?

Comment: Re:Experts (Score 1) 875

by arcticinfantry (#32273816) Attached to: National Academy of Science Urges Carbon Tax
All talking points you've received from on high. Sorry. Your willingness to barter away my freedoms based on little more than some rhetoric from some lobbiests, bureaucrats and scientists who are all in line at the gravy train. All parties are free to solve this perceived problem on their own without any interference from the government. You and those who subscribe to the Catastrophic man made global warming arguments would seem to be better at rationalizing and making self serving statements than actually proving anything about the environment or solving any of its problems.

Those who do things in a noble spirit of self-sacrifice are to be avoided at all costs. -- N. Alexander.

Working...