Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Dumbass Bets (Score 1) 252

But before that 6000-8000 years ago it was quite lower. As your graph shows.

If you would show something longer like this one :

You would see that overall, we are coming out of an ice age. And generaly speaking, whatever is happening now (in the last 100-200 years) is basically insignificant.

Comment Re:"Climate contrarians" (Score 1) 252

So you are saying those who agree with Lindzen and Spencer but are not scientists are "deniers", but those who agree with the alarmists "Karl, Schmit. Maan" are smart, intelligent people even if they dont have a science degree?

You do understand that is how religions are started and how people start thinking they are "righteous" and brand others as "heretics" right?

Maybe you didint think through your statement.

Comment Re:Newsflash (Score 2) 645

Look, because you follow the crowd and news and like to frequent propaganda alarmist green sites, does not mean you are "educated" on the matter.

Sea level rise is at about 3mm per year and has been since the end of the last ice age.
Temperatures have been pretty flat for 18 years now and the evidence shows this.

2014 was the "warmiest" year by something like 0.01C with an error margin of 0.1C with a 34 or 38% (I forget which) level of confidence.

I think the facepalm should go to you and all those who follow the "IN" crowd and like to believe the boogeyman scare stories of your generation.

Only a few climate scientists profit from all this scare mongering, Jaggadish Shukla being one of them. But it only takes a few very vocal ones in the media to stir up a frenzy and control the narrative, especially when backed by big money like the Rockefellers and governments like the U.N.

You think you are being smart, but you believe exactly what they want you to. You are being misled and you need to open your eyes.

Comment Re:It's wrong because... (Score 1) 294

And there you go, claiming propaganda and statistical dishonesty as science.

Then you wonder why people don't buy the spin you are trying to sell.

If you can side with a paper like Cook et al. 2013, then you arent worth listening too.
Your intellectual dishonesty is clear as icy water from a freshly melted glacier.

Comment Re:Citation [Re:It's wrong because...] (Score 1) 294

I am not mixing anything.

When something has benefits and drawbacks, its important to weight them against each other. Making decisions without considering the impacts is irresponsible.

Now, you'll say we have thought of all this, but I don't agree.

About your links... I'm not saying there aren't some that where part of the tobacco misinformation and creationists too who are part of the climate skeptics, but they arent alone.

Again one of your links SKS is one of the worst propaganda sites around. If you cant see that SKS is spin, propaganda and bullshit, then there is no point in discussing with you as you will never open your eyes. No matter how smart and what credentials you have.

There is something very wrong with climate science, the UN IPCC bureaucratic organisation, the IMF, the corruption of the peer review system and of public science funding. Its dangerous and it should worry everyone.

Comment Re:Citation [Re:It's wrong because...] (Score 1) 294

Oreskes? Really?

The Master spin doctor lunatic from the chruch of climate science is your reference? Read her papers, thats where you will find the pseudoscience.

No one believes the creationists except for those already inclined and indoctrinated into the crazy churches. Why? Because its bat shit crazy.

Some did believe the tobacco industry, and to be honest, many doctors did too for a long time. Not to mention that the second hand smoke studies are not all that convincing and arent really conclusive. In any case, it took time to get to the right conclusions about smoking, not just because of the tobacco industry, but because it was and still is such a big part of peoples lives.

Now about the oil industry... though I'm sure there is some misinformation being pushed by them, there is much more by the Greenpeace movement, the highly ignorant Sierra foundation and the other likes it ( funded by the Rockefeller's) etc.

What allot forget is that our modern society exists because of cheap energy. The only reason we are here, with this level of technology, education, leisure, etc... is cheap energy. The only reason women can work on an equal footing and be educated, cheap energy. Anything about our modern society can be brought back to cheap energy and the industrial revolution.

So yes, it will take quite a bit of convincing for most people that oil is a bad thing.

Comment Re: First, AGW came for the Marshall Islands... (Score 1) 276

I do comment on this subject extensively, because I care, and I sincerely feel the world has been played on this subject.

Evidence abounds of bad science and bad journalism (no investigation). From A to Z the whole subject is filled with propaganda, spin and alarmism.

Everything organisation you mentioned benefits from this. The Military is the government and if they declare this a national security issue they will get extra funding. The insurance companies will increase premiums and reduce claim payments, food and agriculture lives on subsidies.

The fund announced by Bill Gates and all comes with strings attached, public money and allot of it, is required. This fund will be for profit. The companies this fund will pay to do works, aren't going to be doing it as non profits.

How you cannot see this is mind boggling.

Show me the proof that this is a runaway problem, that it is caused by us and not natural variability, that we are seeing it Now, which we aren't. Data shows there has been no increase in extreme weather, that sea level rise has been chuging along at 3mm per yearvsince thé last ice Ãge, that glaciers go up and down amd this year are on a recovery path from the latest downturn.

  Please show me some actual data that shows we should spend trillions.

Have you ever taken the time to research that research how much mitigation all that money is "planned" to give us? It's on the order of 0.05C over 50-100 years.

Even the solution to the non problem is flawed.

Comment Re:Bullshit. (Score 1) 276

Science says, 3mm per year since the last ice age and no sign of acceleration.

So your "perceptions" are irrelevant.

Fearmongering from the media is irrelevant.

Stop trying to make use redistribute money into the pockets of the elite by pretending its about spending money on the poor.
There is NO problem to fix. Stop inventing problems.

Comment Re:India vs. the Marshall Islands (Score 1) 276

The benefits to society AND health in the long term from cheap energy far outweigh the negatives.

You seriously need to rethink your premise.

Technology and research is well on its way to solving these issues without handicapping society with unfair and unnecessary economic burdens.

While your at it, please move out of the way of Nuclear and let us use it to power humanity and its growing needs for energy.

Comment Re:Great news for sceptics (Score 2, Interesting) 369

But... it is an outlier. What is your point?

If after this el nino, the avg. temperature curve is flat from about 1997 to present, with 3 el ninos in the mix and 2 large ones at that, it most certainly is an important observation.

The el nino is one thing, unfortunately for those cheering at "the warmest october evah", the la nina might just wipe the smirks of their faces... we'll just have to wait and see. Until then, the alarmists will be smiling and happy that nature is finally cooperating with their models for a brief period.

Slashdot Top Deals

Another megabytes the dust.