Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Go after em Nate (Score 1) 335

by pastafazou (#46542609) Attached to: Nate Silver's New Site Stirs Climate Controversy
First, don't bother comparing Venus to Earth. The atmosphere of Venus is 93 times heavier than the atmosphere of Earth, and it's twice as tall. Likewise, Mars has an atmosphere that is 95% CO2 yet temperatures on Mars are lower than Earth. However, the atmosphere of Mars is much thinner than Earth. There is plenty of debate as to how much of a role CO2 plays in the temperature of the atmosphere of Venus, but the fact is we don't have an accurate answer yet. So please don't try and use Venus as an example. Second, why would you assume most of life that we know would die out if Earth flips back to a hot house phase? It was the ice ages that have seen mass extinctions. The hot house phases are marked by rampant growth of life and diversification of species.

Comment: Re:Does this 'trick' adhere? Nope. (Score 1) 560

by pastafazou (#46305557) Attached to: How Well Do Our Climate Models Match Our Observations?
"The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon".... Sorry, but 'trick' isn't scientific or mathematical jargon. Please look at the tree ring proxy in question. Please note that it matches the temperature reconstruction pretty closely for a while, and then goes in the opposite direction. The 'trick' eliminated the obvious visual contradiction. It wasn't an issue of making disparate data sets fit. You can believe what you want, and obviously you've made your choice and have proceeded to dig. I think the right thing to do would have been to come to the conclusion that the correlation of the tree ring data with most but not all of the temperature data means it should be excluded, not 'tricked' into fitting.

Comment: Does this 'trick' adhere to scientific principles? (Score 2) 560

by pastafazou (#46297861) Attached to: How Well Do Our Climate Models Match Our Observations?
Your clarification that the climate scientists were trying to hide the decline of the tree ring data as opposed to hiding the decline of the temperatures isn't very reassuring. If they've used tree rings to reconstruct worldwide climate temperatures as a proxy, and this proxy diverges from observations to the point that they have to "hide the decline", I think there's a definite problem with their science. Doesn't this invalidate the entire climate/temperature reconstruction that includes these tree rings? Why would they have to use a statistical method or 'trick' to make the data fit the theory? That doesn't sound like something a scientist interested in discovering the truth should have to do. Unfortunately, this isn't about pure science, as there is plenty of money and politics involved on both sides of the argument. There are reputations, careers, and honor at stake too. The email leaks revealed the science isn't as clear cut as they would have us believe. They also revealed that there are some climate scientists who are quite unwilling to even consider any evidence that contradicts their own beliefs. It's especially concerning when they advocate hiding or even deleting info, data and communications in order to avoid having to respond to FOI requests. Why would they need to do this?

Comment: Talk about an opportunity.... (Score 1) 213

by pastafazou (#46057601) Attached to: Should Self-Driving Cars Chauffeur Shopping 'Whales' For Free?
to take out an entire class of people in one shot. A fully automated car that shows up and ferries people around. A car which is naturally heavily computer reliant, as well as potentially prone to being hacked. And a system which would see the majority, if not all, politicians/lawyers/CEOs/board members/movie stars shuffled around in these. 1 Malicious hack later, and you've got a serious issue...

Comment: Re:obvious errors in the rebuttal (Score 1) 117

by pastafazou (#45964957) Attached to: Khosla, Romm Fire Back At '60 Minutes' Cleantech Exposé
The war on oil continues to throw about the claim that fossil fuels are subsidized. Nobody ever challenges them on how they determine a subsidy. The fact is, the fossil fuel industry doesn't receive ANY subsidies. It's all a slight rephrasing of the truth that allows them to get away with making this claim. Basically, when an oil company spends money on new research and development, they are allowed to deduct the costs of this research and development from their earnings. Thus, if they spend 1 billion dollars on R&D, then 1 billion dollars is deducted from their earnings, which leads to a reduction in taxes owed. At the 35% tax rate, that means $350 million in taxes that aren't assessed to that oil company. This is then claimed as a subsidy of $350 million dollars!

Comment: Re: USA needs a comprehensive and coherent energy (Score 2) 117

by pastafazou (#45964779) Attached to: Khosla, Romm Fire Back At '60 Minutes' Cleantech Exposé
Anyone with half a brain in their head can compare the energy density of oil (41.9MJ/Kg) versus Uranium (570,000MJ/Kg) versus any and every other energy source available and conclude pretty easily that atomic energy is where we should be focusing our efforts. Given the fact that we already have the technology working, why would we be wasting so much time, effort, and money for alternative sources?

Comment: Re:very understandable (Score 1) 784

by pastafazou (#45578215) Attached to: Disabled Woman Denied Entrance To US Due To Private Medical Records
And it's stupid people like you that keep allowing Communism to be experimented with. And never are any of the lessons learned! Communism doesn't work, because there are some really tough jobs, and some really shitty jobs, but they all need to be performed. But in a communist setup, where everyone's take from the system is equal, it means nobody wants to do the tough work or the shitty work, since there's no incentive. So the state has to force people to do those jobs. And that's why communism will never work.

Comment: Re:Sounds like a problem... (Score 1) 507

by pastafazou (#45276895) Attached to: How Big Data Is Destroying the US Healthcare System
First off, stop looking at "profit motive" as a bad thing. If the company doesn't make a profit, the many people employed by the company can't get paid. Profit needs to exist in order for things to continue. Would you go to your job every day if all it did was cover your costs of staying alive and left you with no extra money? Second, insurance is a gamble, both for the buyer and the seller. There's no guarantee the insurance you buy is going to completely cover you for everything. There's also no guarantee that the insurance company will collect enough premiums to cover all claims. Some years profits are big, some years they're small, and some years they suffer losses. Making the insurance a "government solution" isn't going to change any of this. There are still a bunch of employees who expect a nice paycheck at the end of the week. And there is still no guarantee that premiums will cover all claims. However, there is a big difference between a private company and a government department. Private companies need to run the business efficiently, because should they screw up, they're all out of a job. A government department, however, doesn't face this worry. This is why government bureaucracies become bloated and inefficient over time. Look at Canada's health system, where the average wait time from initial referral to actual treatment performed by a specialist is well over 20 weeks. And because it's a "universal" health care system, there's no accountability in terms of costs versus services delivered.

"If value corrupts then absolute value corrupts absolutely."