Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: funding of science (Score 1) 437

by smashin234 (#49105337) Attached to: How One Climate-Change Skeptic Has Profited From Corporate Interests

Every scientist has ingrown bias. Someone pays their salary, and in order to keep their jobs, they have to make that person happy. Otherwise, that person is not by definition a professional scientist.

Just the same as anyone else. Whether its government grants or private funding, the money comes from an employer who is biased and wants certain results, and so the pressure is on the scientist to conform or wither away without funding. To think that any scientist is completely impartial is missing the most important part of being a professional scientist: that they are being paid. After that, what else is important? Attack the science itself if you call yourself a scientist, and if you are a political hack, attack the funding like is done here.

To say that one scientist who is funded by a private individual is anymore biased than scientists who are funded by Government is sloppy thinking at best that fails to recognize that science is a system without funding and without consensus in itself.

Agreement? not at all.

The only aspect in science we care about is logic and deduction, and 99.9% of the time when a scientist is not being attacked because of their actual science, its nothing but a political witch trial that cares only about its pound of flesh.

Real scientists for instance would never point to this guys source of funding as a form of bias. They would attack the science itself and go from there. But than again, this entire piece is a witch-hunt to destroy one man who disagrees with someone. Welcome to politics, where we do not follow the scientific method and where we insult others thinking we are doing the work of science.

Comment: Re:Here comes the bullshit ... (Score 1) 481

by smashin234 (#48987725) Attached to: DOT Warns of Dystopian Future For Transportation

You are correct, this will happen with or without Government involvement or not.

Political backing is only required in industries that can not win on their own and so require back-up funding to exist.

As for Google , I would suggest that self-driving 18 wheelers will probably be more useful than anything else, and so transportation for individuals other than the super rich will probably stay the same (as you say.) The people might see some taxi's in large cities that are self driving, as the cost for a 100k self driving car is roughly the same as a 30k car with a 70k human (benefits plus salary)....

I don't know personally, but it would seem fun to say bye bye to drinking and driving and never worry about that again. Just my two cents anyhow.

Comment: Re:A question for all the"deniers". (Score 1) 497

by smashin234 (#48875005) Attached to: Science By Democracy Doesn't Work

Here is the corollary to this for those who believe in CO2 catastrophe:

Never before in the history of our planet has CO2 increase lead to catastrophe or anything as bad as that is predicted by computer models. So in essence, my point is as follows:

If CO2 is not a driver of climate as suggested by paleo data going back millions and even billions of years, why do so many people believe that this "unprecedented" event is going to happen?

It takes a belief and faith that such a thing is going to happen. We can argue about computer models about the future climate and all sorts of things about them, but the main point I am trying to make is this:

What makes TODAY so special that the climate is suddenly going to go into an irreversitable tail-spin?


Comment: Re:The good thing about it is.. (Score 1) 497

by smashin234 (#48874947) Attached to: Science By Democracy Doesn't Work

Yes, because this is obviously how science is done. You know, where beliefs trump empiricism and where instead of using the boring old scientific method we simply parrot what we believe as if it is sciency.

Ok, to be serious for just a moment, are you seriously telling us that its interesting what a bunch of idiot politicians believe? That idiot politicians beliefs on a science topic are actually relevant?

Comment: Re:You wouldnt change anyway (Score 1) 441

by smashin234 (#48828127) Attached to: Why We Have To Kiss Off Big Carbon Now

Probably, because the greens are nothing but modern day Amish in love with obsolete technology like wind power.

Nothing like being told by a hypocritical Amish idiot that I should "SACRIFICE" for their beliefs. Than again, why should I sacrifice today when the Amish themselves refuse to?

Sounds kind of funny that the fringe people who believe in the end of the world want everyone else to sacrifice first....

Kind of weird that such a doomsday cult exists today and that it consists mostly of atheists...kind of like humanity needs a belief system of some type and that if you take religion out of it, its just as nutty as religions are. Ironic perhaps.

Comment: Re:Hypocrites, liars and communists. (Score 0) 441

by smashin234 (#48828115) Attached to: Why We Have To Kiss Off Big Carbon Now

I guess this "carbon problem" you talk about is not a big enough problem for you to personally inconvenience yourself, but you are more than happy to have Government inconvenience me for it? Sounds like someone who does not really think carbon is a problem after all.

Either that, or just another fascist who does not realize that he is one...

Comment: Re:We deserve this guy (Score 0) 496

by smashin234 (#48803919) Attached to: Ted Cruz To Oversee NASA and US Science Programs

Yes, the NASA budget was increased for "climate change research" and other corrupt crap like that. For space exploration, not a penny was increased. Heck, NASA was given additional things like "make Muslims happy" because yes that is obviously what NASA should be doing.

Than, if you look at other Government agencies, you notice that 5 other Government agencies have their own climate change slush funds and that every agency that can get involved wants to. There is a lot of money up for grabs after all and what self-appreciating Government drone would NOT want billions in funding for something as comical as "climate change." Liberals lap that crap up like candy and will give away other people's money in a heartbeat to combat climate change. Just ask Al Gore who has made billions on climate change fear off of yes gullible liberals who believe his lies no matter how obtuse and irrational. Heck, most people can not even figure out who is crazier, whether its Al Gore or the unabomber...and yet look how close to the presidency that loon got? Pretty scary that it was hanging chads in the state of Florida that kept a bonified lunatic like Al Gore from being president.

Than again, the best question we should all be asking is : Why does our Government have five agencies all doing the same research on climate change? Perhaps because a large body like Government can not do things functionally well? Or that they can't do anything without repeating the work at five different locations so that slush funds can never be found?

Whichever it is, we should all recognize that NASA's budget is a joke that just never ends. Why should NOAA and NASA both repeat the same stupid ass research? And than you should realize that these organizations are not necesarily for the good of the people but rather for their own glory and for their own missions. Explore space? Screw that, what has NASA done that is truly phenomenal past the moon landings? The organization has become a joke and a slush fund for various fringe groups like greens who believe that the end of the world is nigh and these people are more than willing to use everyone else's money to solve that problem.

Funny ain't it? That the entire "lets have Government solve climate change" brigade never stops and realizes that instead of being rapid fascists who tell others what to do could go live like the Amish, live in a sustainable way and not use fossil fuels and they could honestly say they are part of the solution. But we never hear about that kind of nonsense either, because today half the country believes they have a right to tell others to pay more for electricity and to pay more in taxes so that Government can "solve a problem" that does not exist and which is ripe ground for billions and even trillions in public money to disappear down rat-holes of corrupt NGO's and into the pockets of every little bit con artist who just wants to make a buck on scaring the bejesus out of people.

Face it, we are all screwed because some genius *(American voters) decided years ago that the lunatics should be in charge of the asylum and while large systems like our Government will often grind forward through their own sheer momentum, this won't last and it won't last for long if the scandals keep pushing into the trillions of dollars like they are today. But yea, I am sure that the six billion that disappeared under Hillary Clinton's state department was money well spent, and we could all go on about both political parties and their sheer corruption, but the only thing that will stop it is the people themselves who will yes someday form a lynchmob and settle the problem once and for all. I just know one thing: I am glad I am no politician and that I am not the fool left holding the bag when the system collapses and the people institute a new Government themselves.

Comment: Re:"Could", (Score 1) 401

by smashin234 (#48593709) Attached to: The Shale Boom Won't Stop Climate Change; It Could Make It Worse

Only a fool believes that New York City is going to be underwater by the year 2500. The only way that is even remotely possible is if humanity was to leave New York City and leave it to the oceans...and that is not going to happen.

The people who predict the big cities going underwater are uneducated idiots who have not looked at old historical photos of these same cities from 100 years ago. 100 years ago, the oceans and the rivers were much closer to the city center and somehow the land was expanded (especially in Manhatten). You see, man has this ability to move dirt around and change the elevation of low lying areas. The reason we typically build dams instead of doing that is that building dams is cheaper, but you never see that kind of discussion in "climate science" because that is an actual problem based in reality....

Or look at Miami...a swampland that was worthless until we dragged it.

No, its physically impossible for these cities to be left to the oceans even if ocean levels started rising faster than the slow crawl that is happening now. Look at New Orleans, or the Netherlands, you see man will adapt. It might be costly, but it will happen and those horror stories of the oceans smothering people to death are nothing but science fiction gone horribly wrong to scare gullible and stupid people alike into thinking there is a crisis.

Its all nonsense in the end.

Humans have adapted to changing sea levels for over 1000 years now. Yea, sea levels are increasing as to be expected during an interglacial. I am more scared personally of the end of the current interglacial when our planet goes back into an ice age and covers all of Canada and Russia and a good portion of other countries in glaciers. Try farming on a glacier. Try feeding a large industrialized civilization when icebergs are creeping closer to your big cities.

That is why I laugh at the horror stories caused by global warming. Rising seas? Please, at the rate its happening (not what the computer models tell us) is comically small and easily adapted to. Even the rising temperatures that we see from actual measurements are not scary and the last 15 years show us that warming has slowed down. Are we to be scared of "possibilities based on computer models"? Or do we look at the actual data and decide that this catastrophe is not going to happen and go back to adapting to changes in the climate system? I prefer adaptation because that is what humans are good at. Controlling the climate is just a fool's game and is something we are incapable of doing.

Comment: Re:Shouldn't be so difficult (Score 0) 493

by smashin234 (#40233247) Attached to: Classroom Clashes Over Science Education

I am a troll because people do not agree with that point of view here.

Indeed, if we are going to teach children that "global warming is a fact" it would require something more substantial then, "Well we can not explain the warming we experienced from 1970 - 2000 and since we can not, it must have been due to man." And that is what they want to teach children in schools? That we can assume something without proof and just simple correlation and then tell children, well its caused by that when something we do not understand about our planet could just as likely be the reason for the warming from 1970-2000.

While you are at it, explain how CO2 levels went up from 1950-1970 and also from 2000-present and in both we did not warm...but heck we can not use that to teach children either...because that goes against the sham of a consensus...

The hockey stick is just the tip of the iceberg. What happened there is that certain tree rings were cherry picked to match up to what the scientists thought was the truth versus what actually happened. We have seen it with the yamal series and others. And posters below this obviously think that using the same faulty kind of science over and over confirms results? Nah, it just shows that if you do things the wrong way you will get the wrong result everytime.

-another logical fallacy on top of the one I was responding with, but that is neither here nor there.

Comment: Re:priacy 2.0 (Score 1) 329

by smashin234 (#40228189) Attached to: China Secretly Clones Austrian Village

There are a lot more Missouri towns then that which are pronounced differently. New Madrid is pronounced Mad rid and portageville, I won't even pronounce that here for ya, but there is hayti (hay TIE) but there is also blytheville (Arkansas) which is pronounced Blahville.

Heck, Rolla Missouri is pronounced like it sounds, but the town originally was supposed to be a copy of Raleigh, and see how they butchered both the spelling and how its pronounced....

But that is neither here nor there. The town of Peculiar for instance had its first two choices rejected because they already existed and if I remember correctly the postmaster told them they needed a more "Peculiar" name...and they took that.

The history of any state for that matter though is more about how people were just trying to figure out names for their towns and most of the time like the above people pronounced them differently due to cultural differences. (different accents) I mean think of it, who would name their town "Blytheville" in the first place? Every state has examples of that, and yes its stealing I guess, but isn't it said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery?

Comment: Re:Bigger Problem (Score 1) 493

by smashin234 (#40228055) Attached to: Classroom Clashes Over Science Education

Because stopping climate change requires rebuilding the energy infrastrcuture, which means that the oil and coal companies will lose money. Also, it will require either nuclear power or an absolutely enormous amounts of resources being permanently devoted to building and maintaining renewable power plants. Nuclear power is scary, and using enormous amounts of effort to maintain renewable power will mean far lowered quality of life for everyone (since that effort is removed from producing consumables).

Basically, climate change means that everyone who's in school now has nothing but misery to look forward to, either from trying to stop the change or from not stopping it. Also, fossil fuels are running out. Combine these two and there's precious little reason to bother graduating.

Are you seriously telling me that you have assumed all warming is going to be bad and will cause everyone to live in misery? And you are telling people to not bother graduating? Wow, that is quite pessimistic viewpoint. Since I do not claim to know the future, you might be right, but giving up on living now is probably going to ensure that you do not live that long....

As for the science, I guess you read a little too much of Bill McGuire: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay-festival/9312347/Hay-Festival-2012-Government-adviser-Bill-McGuire-says-global-warming-is-causing-earthquakes-and-landslides.html

Don't worry, the children will be fine, but if you keep listening to people preaching doom and gloom all the time with no science to back it up, you will probably just be depressed all the time. This is why we need to teach better science in schools and teach that facts are more important then emotional tirades on how the end of the world is coming. Stick to the facts and not emotional outbursts. The world will go on like it has regardless, and if we do warm, well we either adapt or die. That is evolution for you. (I guess I am assuming you believe in evolution...)

There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence. -- Jeremy S. Anderson