Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Prep for the CompTIA A+ certification exam. Save 95% on the CompTIA IT Certification Bundle ×

Comment Re:Citibank (Score 1) 195

You must mean the invented costs based on magical predictions of the future based on conjecture.

Option 1: Assured money for the banks
Option 2: Maybe money for the banks, if things turn catastrophic

Which option would you prefer if you where a bank?

Again. Fear the banks in everything... except on climate change. Right??

Comment Re:Citibank (Score 1) 195

I cant believe you got moded up for this.

Citibank has a stake in this. They will make loads of money of carbon trading and loans on all the "ACTION" projects.

Doing nothing does not "stimulate" the economy, thus no money for the banks.

I am baffled by the usual "Dont trust the media and the banks" except when they talk about "Climate change". Than you can trust them without question.

Comment Re:3mm is the key (Score 1) 382

That line is pretty close to linear, especialy if you consider the error bars for the first 50-75 years.

A sea level rise of 3 inches for 23 years is not abnormal.

3mm/yr sea level rise is pretty much what we've been seeing since the end of the little ice age.

At this rate we will see about 1foot rise per century, which is absolutely NOTHING to worry about and just natural variation considering we are comming out of an ice age.

If it hasnt been a catastrophic problem in the past, why would it be for the next 100 years?

The EXPERTS are showing non catastrophic data and trying to convince you that it is catastrophic.

Finaly, the first 15 years of this century has seen about 45mm of sea level rise. To reach 3 feet it would require 3 times that rise per year and NOTHING indicates this will happen.

Comment Re:I'm shocked! Shocked! (Score 1) 152

False premise is the the base of your post.

CO2 is life. C is life.

Calling it pollution is a political stance, ushered in by those that created this system, a system designed to be gamed from its inception.

The fact that y our ideology lets you gobble up these lies, is irrelevant to the truth, that it has nothing to do with the environement.

Comment Re: Global Climate != Local Climate (Score 1) 385

Its sad to see than you can read, but fail to understand.

If I call you an idiot because I believe you to be an idiot, that is still name calling. "Rightly" doesn't factor into this.

You are acting religious, as you believe in something without foundation, only because others have told you to believe it.

Strawman argument is exactly what you did, you made an argument, projected it onto me and than used it to try and take me down. The fact that you don't realize how weak your arguments are, shows you have no good arguments and/or your arguments come from a place of emotion.

Kid :) Cute, you are trying to make yourself seem mature, older and wiser. When you just keep demonstrating you are none of those.

Comment Re: Global Climate != Local Climate (Score 1) 385

What's ridiculous is you, reduced to name calling to make your point because you have run out of arguments.

Building straw arguments about God , when you have no idea about my beliefs.

You presume to be an intelligent person, but you follow and parrot what others say like a sheep. Because it fits your ideology, because you believe you are righteous.
Which makes you the religious believer not I.

P.s. I don't believe in God, gods or any religion, least of all the religion of green eco terrorist evangelists and fear mongering alarmists.

Comment Re:Improving data [Re:The Gods] (Score 1) 385

You mean the scientific explanation that buckets and water taken from engine intakes (warmed up by hull friction and other factors, as well as taken a hugely differing depths) is better or on the same level as ARGO?

So we'll just merge them together and average it. Thats a whole lot better now. You see, its warming!

Help me, I'm a prisoner in a Fortune cookie file!