Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment GLobal warming scien is simple (Score 5, Insightful) 547

why are so many people her suckered by pundits?

Pay attention:
1) Visible light hits the earth. Falsifiable, and tested.
2) When visible light strikes something, IR is generated. Falsifiable, and tested.
3) CO2 is transparent to visible light. Falsifiable, and tested.
4) CO2 absorbed energy from IR. Falsifiable, and tested.
5) CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. Falsifiable, and tested.
6) The VAST majority of excess CO2 in the air is generated by humans. Falsifiable, and tested.

That's it. That is global warming. If you disagree with that, then you need to prove where the science is wrong. I look forward to your noble prize winning paper.
If you read that and still think it doesn't impact the climate(climate change) then you need to show where the absorbed energy is going.

Some of you are very disappointing, falling into ad hom attacks and bad science. Scien that can trivally be checked out. But no, some of ypu moron keeps spouting the same crap.
AGW is a scientific fact.

Comment Re:It's about time (Score 4, Informative) 547

They never changed the name. Please stop being so freaking stupid.

Global warming = Energy captured by excess CO2
Climate change = how global warming impact the climate.
Climate disruption= Economic change do to climate change.
Te first two came int' use almost at the same time.
They are all related but different things. No one is changing anything. I understand the the media confuses the terms, and some pundits use that as some sort of ad hom attack, but you need to be better then that.

Comment Re:It's about time (Score 2, Informative) 547

No, it has not been modified, you should look deeper into that story.

Look at the record since 1880 it rise, levels, rises. levels and so on.
If there wasn't man made global warming then there would be rise and a return.
Look,m the global warming science is fairly simple. Certain actor in the industry are paid to intentionally make it seem confusing.
Pay attention:
1) Visible light hits the earth. Falsifiable, and tested.
2) When visible light strikes something, IR is generated. Falsifiable, and tested.
3) CO2 is transparent to visible light. Falsifiable, and tested.
4) CO2 absorbed energy from IR. Falsifiable, and tested.
5) CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. Falsifiable, and tested.
6) The VAST majority of excess CO2 in the air is generated by humans. Falsifiable, and tested.

That's it. That is global warming. If you disagree with that, then you need to prove where the science is wrong. I look forward to your noble prize winning paper.
If you read that and still think it doesn't impact the climate(climate change) then you need to show where the absorbed energy is going.

Seriously, stop being a dolt.

Comment Re:Good! (Score 1) 619

two things.
One - the vast amount of public transportation in the USA was initially designed to move poor people
Two - tn's not cheaper then owning a car.

As a side not: a bus is a great energy waster. Less energy would be used if everyone who rides a bus drove a car.

If you want people to Use mass transit it needs to be planned at the tate level, and it needs to be subsidized. People aren't going to pay the same or more to be inconvenienced and be on someone else's timetable.

Anecdotal example:
I worked at a company that gave everyone annual passes to public transportation. Half the people used to every day. Most of the rest used it 1-3 times a week. Plus we could use it at other time. So I would take mass transit to the zoo on weekends with my kids.
I don't work there and I can't really justify paying more to ride the bus.

Comment Re:Good! (Score 1) 619

Why would it. They need more money to dot hing X. Reducing else were isn't more money.

And politician cut taxes often, and it usually turns out to be very harmful becasue they take money from critical areas before pork.

the 50's and 60's had great education in this country. Once the taxes got slashed in 69/70 education started spiraling. Did you know that when adjusted for inflation, we out half as much into the schools per child then in 69?

Reducing taxes is foolish. Find a program people don't want and has no use, get rid of it.
Then reduce taxes to reflect the lower output. Or move the money into area that we need it in.

Comment Re:So when does the trickle down start? (Score 1) 619

No, it wouldn't push that much wealth over seas. Stop buying into that crap.
At least it didn't before. If it does now, we can deal with that.

Frankly I think we should go back to the 1968 tax rate with 2 modifications:
1) Adjust the income levels for inflation. That would mean the 90% tax rate would be on money over 70Million.
2) Don't tax the first 20K

I would also put a .05% tax on all trades, buy or sell. Put the money into education. The higher the education level, the better to country over all.

Comment Re:Why not? (Score 1) 619

"The tax-per-gallon is over 2x as much as the oil companies themselves get from it in profit"
so what? Why does that matter one bit?
The things the taxes god to support ahve gotten more expensive, and they tax hasn't gone up in over 20 years.. 20 years where MPG has gone up as well as costs.

"*and* jack up prices for everything "
I didn't know congress raised the prices of all things.

Everything in your post is irrelevant to raising the tax. You're just an angry person who just looks for any excuse to be angry.

And yes, we have recovered. I have no idea why you think otherwise.

Stop being a dummy.

Slashdot Top Deals

In any formula, constants (especially those obtained from handbooks) are to be treated as variables.

Working...