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


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Climate change skeptic (Score 4, Insightful) 313

1. A primary method of convincing others is to ridicule and insult them. Notice the responses and downvotes this post will get.

Repeated ignorance in the face of facts deserves ridicule.

2. We have seen vastly higher CO2 levels in planetary history and right now we are seeing what is actually all time lows. We should expect CO2 increases and, in fact, hope for them as going much below 300 ppm would see the beginning of a massive plant die off - there's a reason commercial greenhouses pump CO2 into their facilities.

Not in human history.
And the level sat at ~280pp for several million years without a die off in sight.

3. The temperature change we are seeing now is far from unusual, we've seen similar changes in both rate and magnitude before. In fact, what we are seeing now does not stand out from background noise.

Completely wrong.
The current rate is over 333,000x faster than anything that has come before.

4. Measuring temperatures from millions of years ago to tenths of a degree with any certainty is not realistic. Yet, that's what we're doing.


5. The measuring devices we use, known as Stevenson Screens, have approximately 70% of them improperly cited in such a way as to produce more than 2 degrees of error making it appear hotter (see

Still wrong.

6. We know some, perhaps a lot, of data has been fabricated (e.g. Yamal tree ring data) or manipulated in such a way as to produce the desired results (e.g. the so called hockey stick graph) and how it conveniently always gets colder in the past as data is adjusted.

Yep, wrong again.

7. We know from the ClimateGate email leaks that coordinated efforts to suppress any conflicting information/studies occurred and were successful.

Manufactured scandal.
IE, lies.

8. Many times the data and methodology of studies supporting AGW is not shared and that even occurs illegally in the refusal of FOIA requests.

Total fabrication

9. So many of the predicted side effects of AGW have not come to pass. For example, we were supposed to be seeing Katrina like hurricanes as the norm but instead the exact opposite happened and we have the longest stretch of reduced cyclonic activity since we began keeping records or the millions of climate refugees that were supposed to be created by now - the UN 62nd General assembly in July 2008 said: it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010. They now say it'll be by 2020 - only a little over 3 years from now. It's not happening. [More here](

Actually 2012 was a record year for tropical storm damage, especially in areas that don't typically see much of them.
Cherry picking for only hurricanes, a geographically restricted term, leaves out rather a lot of the globe.

10. Experiments allegedly proving AGW are sometimes blatantly faked ([see here](

Link to nonscientists who lie about science, and get paid to do so.

11. The breakdown of the scientific method as it becomes science by consensus with massive reliance on appeals to authority and popularity as well as theories that are not falsifiable.


12. Computer models are based on assumptions that may or may not be accurate, computer models are not necessarily "proof" of the future. For example, the "pause" of the last 15 years that is causing all the confusion now.

There was no confusion.
And the pause wasn't even a pause.
The RATE of warming slowed down, but still being a non-zero number is mean it was still warming .

It's like a derivative in calculus. if f(x) is y=x, then its d(x) = 1. the slope of the d(x) is 0, but that doesn't mean the slope (or rate of increase) of the original f(x) is also 0.

that's what misinformers like you try to do is conflate the two, and sa that because the RATE slowed and flattened out, that the WARMING did too. but that's not it works.

and the only question was the "why" it slowed down.
which didn't last long: scientists figured out fairly quickly it was because a threshold point had been reached where the energy (ie warming) began being absorbed by the oceans at a larger rate than it been previously.

so now, having corrected your lack of education, say it with me: there was no pause, and you were ignorant of what you speak

Comment Re:Climate change skeptic (Score 1) 313

the only thing you proved is that the media has been sensationalizing and misreporting science for a very long time.
and you get modded down because the things you say are discredited BS, the same tired BS that gets trotted out by "skeptics" every time.

only thing is, a skeptic only gets to question until his question actually gets answered.
it is then, when begin ignoring science and still post the same BS that you are no longer a skeptic.

you are not a skeptic.
you are a troll, posting BS.


Climate Change Will Stir 'Unimaginable' Refugee Crisis, Says Military ( 313

Citing military experts, The Guardian is reporting that if the rise in global warming is held under 2 degrees Celsius, there still could be a major humanitarian crisis to sort out. From the report: Climate change is set to cause a refugee crisis of "unimaginable scale," according to senior military figures, who warn that global warming is the greatest security threat of the 21st century and that mass migration will become the "new normal." The generals said the impacts of climate change were already factors in the conflicts driving a current crisis of migration into Europe, having been linked to the Arab Spring, the war in Syria and the Boko Haram terrorist insurgency. Military leaders have long warned that global warming could multiply and accelerate security threats around the world by provoking conflicts and migration. They are now warning that immediate action is required. "Climate change is the greatest security threat of the 21st century," said Maj Gen Munir Muniruzzaman, chairman of the Global Military Advisory Council on climate change and a former military adviser to the president of Bangladesh. He said one metre of sea level rise will flood 20% of his nation. "Weâ(TM)re going to see refugee problems on an unimaginable scale, potentially above 30 million people."

Comment Re:Wait a year (Score 1, Interesting) 504

context matters:
the bush number was in a slowing but steady economy not recovering from a recession and already near maximum employment (which is not 0% unemployment btw).

besides calling out one month's number alone isn't useful.
the average is better metric to use.

and to that end, I give average annual job growth, by presidential term (

Jimmy Carter: +3.06%
Ronald Reagan (1): +1.43%
Ronald Reagan (2): +2.69%
George H. W. Bush: +0.62%
Bill Clinton (1): +2.64%
Bill Clinton (2): +2.33%
George W. Bush(1): +0.01%
George W. Bush(2): +0.23%
Barack Obama (1): +0.25%
Barack Obama (2): +1.98%

So again I say: Context matters.
And yes, Bush's job growth was anemic.

Comment Re:Labor Participation Rate, the Unmentionable... (Score 1) 504

It's completely possible, if you're not ignorant and understand what's happening, and a few definitions:
(Hint: you're ignorant)

without getting into the different U-x metrics, Unemployment Rate is generally: "the % of people not employed compared to the labor force".

Labor force then logically consists of both people currently employed, and those seeking employment. if you're not seeking employment, you're not unemployed, even if you aren't working.

Labor Force Participation Rate is then the size of the Labor Force in relation to the overall population, 16 and older (so young children not included).

( for more reading)

So this is a really simple concept.
its possible because: the two things are not mutually exlcusive, they are not zero-sum.

there was a population boom.
this caused an employment boom.
an explosion in the LFPR.

now we're facing a retirement boom.
and these retirees are living far longer than their predecessors, and so they are inflating that P value, by being a member of the population for far longer, at the same time that they deflate the LF by retiring. this even while the two components of LF, U and E, are respectively at record low and high percentages. give them time to die off, and the P side of that formula will drop, and we'll see a flattening of the current downward trend of the LFPR plot vs time.

Comment Re:That can't be right (Score 1) 504

labor force participation isn't going to "recover".
it has nothing to recover to.

yes some people leave the labor pool by going to school or retiring, until the economy is better.
but as the economy improves, they then get tempted to rejoin the workforce, which causes LFPR to increase, and the unemployment rate to increase temporarily (as they join the labor market but aren't hired yet). or maybe they don't come back. why would they if they have no incentive to?

retirees are usually done working, and don't come back if they don't have to. they aren't "unemployed".
students who don't work are likewise not "unemployed".

and hell, people have to remember the PRIMARY cause of LFPR drops right now is the retiring of baby boomers.
the LFPR spiked for two reasons:
-first is that women began entering the workforce (double income homes, etc).
-the second is the baby boomers. the explosion in the us population.

the first cause isn't likely to go away anytime soon.
but the second is. and has been for some years now.
and there's nothing to be done about Boomers leaving the workforce.

Comment Re:Thoughtcrime (Score 1) 404

that is the chief problem with liberalism:
the success of liberalism, which is basically every good thing about the 20th century, breeds complacency.

people forget just how good they had it, and begin to, misguidedly, see liberalism as the source of their woes rather than the source of their peaceful and comfortable lives, lives largely free of want, war, and conflict.

the rich have always had it good.
and the poor have always had it bad.
whether they toiled all in day in the fields, or in the factories.

but what I (or we) are talking about is the middle class.
the life we take for granted didn't really come about or exist until we created the middle class.
the middle class doesn't exist on its own, not as we know it.
the middle class today is a given for the majority of people (though that is decreasing, courtesy of continued voodoo economics from conservatives).
it didn't used to be; the middle class existed, but was much smaller than the one we know, and for most people was only slightly less unattainable than the upper classes.
and this middle class as we know it, and take for granted, owes this existence to liberalism, to progressivism. to ideas like worker safety, decent pay, decent leisure time, decent rights and protections, availability of credit and financing, and regulations and controls on financial institutions.

(there's a corollary to how living without diseases for so long has allowed people, ignorant people, to begin questioning why we even need vaccines....forgetting in their ignorance that vaccines are the very basis for that complacency)

Comment Re:Thoughtcrime (Score 2) 404

no, no it wasn't.

Orwell's target was, as nearly always in his writing, Totalitarianism.

ignorant conservatives always think he was warning against socialism.
he wasn't.

in fact, Orwell was himself a socialist. .

No, his books were about Totalitarianism/Authoritarianism: the Hitlers, the Mussolinis, the Stalins of the world.
The Putins, the Pinochets.
People who held power and used propaganda, coercion, and popular appeal to control their populace.
"We've always been at war with Oceana" isn't such a far cry from "He made the trains run on time".

or more recently "He saved 1000 jobs" and "He stopped Ford from moving to Mexico" .... neither of which is true.


as for you "theory" that the "collectivists imported jihadis" .....
ya that just makes you a moron who believes the crazy BS Alex Jones spews from his misplaced rear end.

also, conservatives aren't classical liberals.
and classical liberalism was never "the political Right".

rather, classical liberalism has more in common with todays liberals (I said more in common, not that liberals today are 100% classical liberals either) than with conservatives, and allows for and even advocates for equality under the law (ie, civil rights) for all persons, as well as responsible regulation on private business.

no, conservatives are rather more accurately aligned with neo-classical liberalism (not neo-liberalism).

and seriously, its actually hard to even discuss with you because you're just so far off base, so blinded by base bigotry and ignorance, youre "not even wrong".

Comment Re:Immigration policy is not hate speech (Score 1) 1042

its not about feelings (and that's a strawman since you seem hazy on the concept)

people are not illegal.
migration to better conditions is a natural human desire.
it is borders that are unnatural artificial constructs.

many undocumented people, being children and babies, didn't get a choice in the matter.
they didn't just decide to break the law. there was no conscious action on their part.
the illegality comes from a condition they could no more control than they can their skin color or gender.
(and this is the basis for it being considered bigotry by the way)

and after living and growing up here, they are as American as any of the rest of us, regardless of their citizenship status.

where would you send them? to a country they've never been to, with a language they don't know, a culture not their own, no friends or family to call on?

besides the term "illegal immigrant" is inaccurate anyway.
it implies commiting an action (immigrating)...illegally.
except very very few undocumented people actually came here illegally.
the vast majority are either brought as children, or came here legally, and then stayed.

point is: youre wrong.

Slashdot Top Deals

Advertising is the rattling of a stick inside a swill bucket. -- George Orwell