Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:This is the year of the extreme climate claims (Score 1) 410

"But they call us names!" Science doesn't work that way.

Who said it did?

Let's look at the post I replied to again.

You call them corrupt fascists. They call you stupid frauds. Let's not pretend you're here for a serious discussion.

It's like you're not even reading this thread. Look at the above name calling rationalization. That AC just said it.

The point is when you keep treating people like crap and not talk science, some people are eventually going to just give up talking science to you.

When are you or other ACs in this thread going to start talking science? It's evidence-based not name calling-based.

And why should such complaints appear in this thread? The earlier poster that I originally replied to and the article they linked to just irrationally libeled people (and the poster didn't even have the right target libeled). This isn't science. It's noise. It's not going to convince anyone. It's not going to save the Earth.

Comment Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score 1) 575

once stopped me in my tracks by saying

It got you to shut up. So it worked. Who knows, he might even believe it too!

I think it also demonstrates the perversity of morality. His "fuck them" attitude, if real, is still probably less harmful than your "let's do it for the children" attitude. After all, those future generations will be able to do that, find their own fucking power. But if we hamstring our societies for frivolous moral reasons (which is where we're heading with climate change mitigation), we'll commit concrete harm to those future generations that merely burning a little more oil can't do.

Here's the problems I always see with this sort of moralizing:

1) No evidence that global warming or other climate change is big enough compared to other problems like overpopulation, poverty, habitat and arable land destruction, etc. There is a remarkable lack of evidence to support the claims of harm.

2) Disregard for the demonstrated dynamic that poor people have more kids and poverty leads to overpopulation which is the biggest problem facing humanity. Among other things, overpopulation is the reason that human-induced climate change is a problem in the first place.

3) Disregard for the cost and ineffectiveness of climate change mitigation. When one looks at Germany's Energiewende, the Kyoto Protocol, carbon emission markets, renewable energy public projects, etc, one sees a history of remarkably costly and useless virtue signalling, often combined with cynical exploitation. There's no regard for how to implement any sort of mitigation measures in a way that doesn't harm billions of people nor regard for the outcome of such projects.

So sure, tell us how your beliefs are going to make the world a better place. But if you really are interested in making the world a better place, then maybe you ought to pay attention to what we're doing now.

Comment Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score 1) 575

You realise that there different types of pollution, and not all of it comes in the form of overly visible black smog or choking dust? As for 3rd-world shitholes - as you call them - yeah those will be affected first because they're generally already on the line, but then so will your favourite vacation stops, coastal cities, and your food supply as crops go thirsty and water gets scarce.

Unless, of course, that doesn't happen. There is a remarkable lack of evidence for your predictions.

Comment Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score 1) 575

Science indicates this is like the Titanic: progressing towards an iceberg and people are happily saying "well, just turn the ship away from it, it's quite far yet".

Chicken littles on Slashdot aren't science. And you seem remarkably ignorant and short-sighted about the problems that face humanity. Where's the concern about overpopulation, poverty, corruption, habitat and arable land destruction, natural resource mismanagment? These are bigger problems than global warming.

It becomes particularly galling when destructive and ineffective mitigation efforts are attempted which make these bigger problems worse.

Except they couldn't. Nor apparently can we -- and it all gets worse because people who do not understand climate (or navigation in that case) think they can bar actions which could help mitigate the problem... because they think that is a plot to take money from them: "what if some people die? A lot of people die everyday so that I can have the lifestyle I want"...

Once again, we see this meaningless and hypocritical morality play. You are one of the ones who do not understand climate. You are one of the ones attempting to bar actions that can make us and our world better. You are part of the problem.

Comment Re:Big surprise some jackhole Silicon Valley (Score 1) 224

Nobody said "I don't think you have a case here, so no, I won't take it on contingency". They said "pay me and I'll see whether or not you have a case here."

Yes, that was the "no" I spoke of. I'm not the one missing the point.

This business necessarily must do the "see if you have a case here" part first (rather, they have an algorithm to do that for them), in order to decide which cases to fund. So that alone would be much further than was getting. They still could have said "no" in the end, but they'd've at least considered the question first.

No, they don't. I doubt they would get any further than the lawyers you consulted. It's still a high cost operation that you aren't willing to pay for. Even if it took a trivial cost of electricity to look at and evaluate the case, there is the considerable risk of advising you.

Comment Re:So global warming started... (Score 1) 575

If we drastically reduced the use of fossil fuels today I doubt it will take hundreds of years to find a working cleaner alternative, especially when there is economic motive.

My concern here is that we have the habit of making enormous economic decisions on the basis of hysteria and fads. It's not going to stop with a one-time bad decision today. There will be something else tomorrow. Hundreds of years of that will result in a lot of death and suffering.

Comment Re:Big surprise some jackhole Silicon Valley (Score 1) 224

rather than "show me the money first then I'll think about it".

That's a "no". Again, I don't see what an algorithm is going to do differently. It's still a huge risk and odds are likely that any similar cases are money sinks. What you need here IMHO is more than just legal advice. You need stronger evidence of the alleged wrong-doing.

Comment Re:Big surprise some jackhole Silicon Valley (Score 1) 224

With an algorithm like this, available to individuals, they (this new startup) could have made the assessment of whether I was likely to win the case, and funded it if so.

You've already consulted several professional lawyers on the matter. Why would the algorithm be any different? The only thing I see that could be relevant is that the business might be able to tap into commercial financial records or spending patterns of your relative and determine at the least that they had a sudden surge of wealth or spending about the time of the supposed appropriation.

Comment Re:This is the year of the extreme climate claims (Score 1) 410

Your claim.

I notice you have yet to dispute any of my claims with facts.

So many rightwing lies, so many facts

"Lie" and "fact" means things. We don't actually have evidence that Steven Goddard is lying. Remember lying is not just saying a falsehood, but saying it while believing it is a falsehood. For example, I don't believe you're lying when you repeatedly make claims of "rightwing lies" without the facts to support it (or for that matter much in the way of examples). You just are ignorantly repeating falsehoods.

Here, my take is that Goddard (or whatever his name is) genuinely believes that the temperature records are being falsified in Antarctica and that the ice buildup such as it is shows that the temperatures are actually growing colder. I don't buy that, especially since he's picking and choosing what he wants to believe. But believing such things is not sufficient to be a liar.

Comment Re:This is the year of the extreme climate claims (Score 1) 410

Ok, it appears that Tony Heller may have written under the name, Steven Goddard. But what is the evidence for fraud? You ever going to provide a link for that or even, a rational argument (which would be even better)?

"argumentum ad populum" "argumentum ad venicundium" and simple lying.

Words have meaning. "argumentum ad venicundium" is argument from authority which again, I haven't done here or elsewhere. But if we're to look for a ready example of the tactic, argument from consensus is a classic example of both fallacies you mentioned here.

As to "simple lying", you ignore here that lying is a deliberate telling of a falsehood. Since I have yet to tell a falsehood here much less a deliberate one, your accusation is completely irrelevant.

It's remarkable how completely shit your arguments have been to this point. I understand that your time is valueless to you, but my time has value to me. I see no point in arguing with someone who can't even do basic reasoning and rhetoric. At this point, it's not even educational for would-be passers-by. They can see your true colors.

Comment Re:This is the year of the extreme climate claims (Score 1) 410

argumentum ad populum does not support your "rejection" of the facts

Words have meaning. Here, "argumentum ad populum" means the fallacy of claiming something is true because many people believe it. A genuine example of such an fallacy is argument from consensus. What I find remarkable is the complete absence of such a fallacy from my writings and yet you still push this.

Slashdot Top Deals

To stay youthful, stay useful.

Working...