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


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:What precentage caused by man? (Score 1) 313

The last time we spoke you were quoting an article that claimed that climate model predictions did not correlate to actual temperature (and therefore the results of CO2 induced warming could be worse than the models predict). Now you say that Richard Lindzen has a model that's accurate.

I googled "Lindzen climate model source code" and couldn't find the source code for his model: nor indeed, any peer reviewed article in which either the function of the model itself is described nor the predictions versus actuals.

Sounds like a snake oil model to me at first glance. Do you have a cite for this claim?

Comment Re:What precentage caused by man? (Score 1) 313

Did their models accurately predict that there would be a leveling off of global temperatures throughout most of the '2000's?

How did YOUR predictive model perform?

Don't have one? In that case, what you are saying is you don't know what is going to happen - and the results could be worse than the models predict. Is that your argument?

Comment Re:What precentage caused by man? (Score 1) 313


What do you make of the consistent failure of the denialist community to come up with any explanation for the recent warming trend that wasn't trivially debunked ? What about the dismal failure of every theory that they have wanted us to believe: e.g. ther is no warming, it's warming due to the sun, it's gravitational lensing, it's warming but there's some problem with some model blah blah so somehow the theory is invalid etc. etc. and for every dismal failure, they've failed to admit they were wrong and next time through, just expected us, to believe them again?

Any comments?

Comment Re:Scientific Reports (Score 4, Funny) 313

So you posted a quote from a website claiming that the CIA has engaged in a time travelling conspiracy involving invisible agents, travelling through time, and when you saw this article, you thought to yourself "the problem with these [ consensus view ] people is that they aren't skeptical enough"

Sounds legit.

Comment Re:Scientific Reports (Score 3, Insightful) 313

If climate change is real, why is there no peer-reviewed research that shows it?

Why would your ignorance of the evidence convince us that there is none? Quite the opposite : you are one of the leading denialists on slashdot, and when I read that I think "this guy hasn't even looked at the evidence" and convinces me, all the more, that your movement is just the corrupt leading the blind.

Comment Re:Just needs a little nudge. (Score 1) 231

Let's strap a couple rockets to it and move it to lunar orbit. Empty it out of personnel, let it do a nice, slow burn to lunar orbit. Slower is cheaper in space. Let it take however long it does to get there, and then we can start sending unmanned Dragon capsules back out to resupply it and lunar shuttles via SpaceX. This would be a good "next step" toward eventually building a permanent structure on the lunar service, and could eventually serve as a sort of waystation for missions on the way out to Mars.

Why would this be a good "next step"? Any permanent structure on the Moon or in lunar orbit will be unmanned (due the exorbitant expense of keeping humans that far out) - what would be the point of a structure whose only purpose is to be a habitation?

If (hopefully) we find a way to harness fusion energy to make an efficient rocket engine, the components on earth are better for fusion than the components on the moon (He3 is not a particularly good fusion fuel) - why wouldn't we just ship the components from the earths surface and fire the engine once to go to Mars?

Comment Re: No complaints here (Score 1) 373

Why do you keep resorting to these angry attacks and outbursts full of swearing and insults?

Any moron who can draw a line will instantly realise that the outcome of your behaviour is that increasingly larger proportions of people will get increasingly angry at you. It's self evident that your sudden denial of 150 year old science needs solid data to be believable, and 20 years after we started asking you politely to explain your assertion that increasing the concentration of CO2 in the troposphere will not lead to changes in the levels of stored energy in the atmosphere, and evidence that explanation with observations, you still haven't done so. Did you lose that data? Or: are you just lying? What did you think would happen once people realised that you were lying about this? Draw the line. Is the forecast good? Does this end well for you, and the other liars like you?

The skeptics don't do that. They civily ask for unmodified data and evidence so that they may apply the scientific method.

Nobody owes you an explanation, you drooling imbecile. YOU owe US an explanation. Why are you claiming that CO2 induced climate change does not exist, and failing to produce any observational data to that effect?

Comment Re: Meh (Score 1) 952

He hasn't. But then, like most people, I'm not an American.

Nice dodge.

Mmm yes. You got me. I deliberately chose not to be an American so that when this conversation happened, I could humiliate you for your stupid assumptions. You caught me.

But do tell me how Trump is limiting the freedom of speech for Americans.

May learn to use google?

That was your argument after all. Now back it up.

You need to learn to moderate your tone.

Comment Re:Isn't this just virtue signaling at this point? (Score 1) 237

You seem to be having trouble understanding there's no way attribution can be assigned given the extent of natural variation. That is why so many climate scientists have spent so many tax-payers $ trying to erase that natural variation by fucking about with the statistics.

Well if some random dude on the internet says it, it must be true, no evidence required.

Just a couple of follow up questions:

1. Variation in which natural forcing, exactly?

2. CIte observational evidence that proves this variation

3. Explain, and cite evidence to prove your assertion that atmospheric CO2 has no effect on climate, and explain the 150 years of observational evidence to the contrary.

4. What is the cycle and expected peak of this natural variation - or is the variation unpredictable i.e. you are saying we are going to burn up and die? When will we die?

Comment Re:Isn't this just virtue signaling at this point? (Score 1) 237

You seem to be stuck in some sort of weird autonomic state which prevents you from addressing the topic at hand.

1. Are we responsible for your ignorance? Should we care about your ignorance?

Assuming the normal consensu applies (i.e. no on both) then wouldn't the natural course of action be for you to go away and research the difference between variation by natural causes and variation from anthropogenic causes?

Comment Re:Isn't this just virtue signaling at this point? (Score 2) 237

Shame you had nothing to say about the graphs.

Nobody said anything of any significance about any graphs.

Why don't you go to realclimate or "skepticalscience" to find some info on them, notable not for what they say but what they do not say.

Info you apparently don't know yourself, since you asked us some fairly basic questions e.g.

What does a "normal global average" mean


What is normal and what is natural variation?

Sounds like you don't even understand the basics of the topic you are posting on. Are we somehow responsible for your ignorance? Should we care about your ignorance?

Slashdot Top Deals

"I never let my schooling get in the way of my education." -- Mark Twain