Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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

Comment Re:Can you handle the truth? I didn't think so. (Score 1) 590

National Socialism was not a leftist plot. It was a right-wing development, as you'd know if you studied a little of the history. Try any history. You'll find that the NSDAP party did have socialist and nationalist wings, it came to power as part of the right wing, and the socialists were terminated with extreme prejudice shortly thereafter. I know this doesn't fit your convenient little narrative, but it's true.

Comment Re:Stop it with the SJW crap!!! (Score 1) 590

Science, as a whole, is capable of correcting itself. There are ways of dealing with scientists who take stands against the evidence, and it isn't happening, because the evidence supports climate science. Just because you're American, and have paid attention to Gore, doesn't mean the majority of climate scientists are.

Comment Re: Stop it with the SJW crap!!! (Score 1) 590

Among scientists who don't have a vested interest in continued research grants that will only support news of an apocalypse (where do you even apply for such grants), there's the same consensus.

It may have stopped getting warmer? Sorry, the old intellectually fraudulent tactic of picking 1998 as your base doesn't work any more. Every month this year has been measured as the warmest on record. It's getting warmer, buddy, and shows no signs of stopping.

Comment Re:The anti-science sure is odd. (Score 1) 590

Yeah, parts of the planet have been warmer and cooler. If you'd like to show me evidence that the planet as a whole has been warmer than what we've got now, go ahead. I haven't seen it.

I don't know what you mean by CAGW, but I'm willing to bet that does not represent the political objectives of any large group of scientists. I don't know that it's any more legit than the Protocols of Zion.

Comment Re: The anti-science sure is odd. (Score 1) 590

Okay, you don't like consensus. Got that. You don't trust things just because a consensus of scientists agree.

Now, where do you get your science? You can't possibly verify physics up through Newton's time by yourself. There's far too many things to do. You're going to have to take some of this stuff on some sort of faith. The neat thing about science is that you can check things. If you ask about Catholic theology, say, you'll find a very large number of things that you can't possibly verify. If you ask about science, you can pick any individual thing and verify it for yourself (it may take some time to learn how to do that, of course). If two theologians disagree, there's no method of picking who's right. If two scientists disagree, there's a method to resolve it. Science lives on consensus, but it has ways to break up false consensuses and allow effective dissent.

You also have a lot of strange views. You can find papers on the satellite observations. You can find papers on the comparisons of projections to reality. It's all out there. It's not hidden. You also seem to think that almost all climate scientists completely disregard the truth, and have a certain political agenda that doesn't vary worldwide. Have you ever thought about what things would have to be true for that to be true?

Comment Re:The anti-science sure is odd. (Score 1) 590

There are global warming scammers, but that doesn't affect the fact that we're heating up the surface of the planet and it's going to have some unpleasant consequences. Check out the IPCC reports.

You seem to assume that almost all scientists are supported by governments that are willing to trash science for political purposes, and all in the same way. We're talking about scientists all over. If the data had been totally blown, there'd be enough climate scientists here and there to show that.

And, yes, the scientific predictions have typically been off on the conservative side. I don't find that comforting.

Comment Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score 1) 590

The US has never had an anti-war party. It's had parties that were against particular wars. It's had parties that were more or less likely to get into a war, but never an anti-war major party. Your "no longer" suggests that you have some idealistic version of the past.

Fracking, if done right, is a good thing. It allows us to burn natural gas instead of coal, which means less CO2 per joule of electricity produced. It can do some nasty things if done wrong, of course.

Comment Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score 1) 590

I really don't care about how the Earth was way long ago. That's not what I evolved in, and that's not what civilization developed in. Climate change will have some positive effects, and it won't wipe out humanity. However, it will have a lot of negative effects, and it's going to be disruptive in very many ways. It's going to hurt a LOT of people, and that's something I do care about.

Comment Re:The losing side must automatically pay (Score 1) 224

The other problem is that there often isn't a case of being really sure of your case. I have no objection to having someone filing a frivolous lawsuit having to pay all the fees, but in the loser-pays system it could be ruinous to lose, so even a 95% chance of winning might be too dangerous. Having some sort of win-lose-"that was stupid and a waste of everyone's time" verdict could be useful, but I don't know that it doesn't function like that already.

Reducing the costs of doing business doesn't necessarily translate into lower prices. It's likely to go to greater profits instead (do a bit of microeconomic analysis to see). In any case, if prices are lower because the corps can treat people illegally without consequences, that's not necessarily a good thing,.

Comment Re:Peter Thiel didn't bankrupt Gawker (Score 1) 224

The problem with that...suppose somebody screws me over for $100K (I don't have millions), and it's worth filing a lawsuit. If the best outcome is that I get $100K back minus lawyer fees and court costs, and it's likely that I'll just have to pay the lawyer and court, I'm screwed. If I can get additional damages for incurring the risk and investment of filing suit, I'm in much better shape.

Comment Re:OMG, a months rent! (Score 1) 224

It doesn't take that much around here to consult a lawyer. However, Pfhorrest said he'd consulted a few, and had been told that he'd have to file suit to find out if he did have a case, because that depended on certain documents he'd only get access to during discovery.. You aren't going to start a lawsuit with $500. Seriously.

You seem to think that the facts were laid out, and it was a matter of checking out the law. That is really bad reading comprehension on your part.

Slashdot Top Deals

Reference the NULL within NULL, it is the gateway to all wizardry.