Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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:Why should we care about faked data? (Score 1) 735

" Why do you think that moving our power production away from fossil fuels necessarily means that things like fertilizer have to go away? " Uhh, perhaps because the vast majority of fertilizer comes from fossil fuel feedstock? Are you seriously this ignorant of the systems you seek to fundamentally change with massive firearm-backed force?

"Those efforts will not bankrupt a single country, let alone all of them"

Why? because you, in your living incarnation of ignorance says it is so? Do you think your opinons carry the weight of some sort of some sort of control language of the universe, such that the things you say simply BECOME true? Because they don't, and you are a fucking retard for thinking that.

"Ahh, the almighty free market, the one that made it so that we had to bail out the banks"

That wasn't the free market you god damn moron. That was George "We Had To Put a Bullet In The Brain Of The Free Market To Save It" "I'm A Communist Fascist Faggot Who Sucks Every Dick In The Universe" Bush. That is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the free market, and it has doomed us all to starvation and death. Just like you will with your further anti-market GENOCIDE. Christ, do you even understand what the market is? Its human beings trading with each other. That is IT. When you intervene with guns and force, it is no longer a market, but a command economy. Stop being fucking stupid, if you can. If not, kill yourself.

"How about the reports that Exxon did their studies starting in the 70s, and that their own scientists concluded that the "greenhouse effect" (as it was called then) was caused by their own products"

Bad science then as now. CO2 was assumed to be a greenhouse gas, when in fact is is H2O that is the greeenhouse gas. H2O is a major contaminate in CO2 cylinders. Dry CO2 wasn't available when the groundwork was being laid for the CO2 as a greenhouse gas theory. AGW has become so politicized that even repeated failures of climate "scientists" predictions have failed to produce ANY change in their theory, or re-examination of their premises. It's shameful.

But in any event, I don't really care. You morons can all go kill yourselves. I'm going to upload the second the tech becomes available, and pray to fucking science that I never have to see another one of you god damned apes again for the rest of fucking eternity.

Comment Re:Why should we care about faked data? (Score -1, Troll) 735

"And people who believe that CO2 causes temperatures to rise are the alarmists. Right." They are ignoramuses who believe what they are told, and have never done a physical chemistry calculation before. CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas relative to Earth's current atmosphere. It has slightly lower heat capacity than the average atmospheric component.

"In other words, that it is actually more expensive to keep using fossil fuels."

No, that means it is more profitable for big banks and other moochers to take government handouts based off of terrible theory and fake data than it is to provide goods and services that are actually desired by the people.

"And, how about this: if solar power becomes a cheap reality, what is that going to do for the quality of life of those 50 million Africans?"

You mean 100% of the Africans who survived the famine caused by the loss of fossil fuel enabled fertilizers? Because that is a few hundred million fewer Africans than exist today. Also quite a few fewer asians, and even a lot fewer white people, including your grandparents who starved to death when AGW "remediation" efforts bankrupted all western countries to the point they could no longer pay pensions and thus allowed all the elderly to die. Something we are disturbingly close to already without idiotic liberals destroying our economy by forbidding the use of carbon based fuels.

"Here's another question for you: can we continue to use fossil fuels indefinitely?"

When was the right time to stop using charcoal to smelt steel? Or to use whale oil to light lamps? When the market dictates we change. Don't pull peak oil out of your ass on me boy. I know economics and peak theory about 1000x better than you do, and will crush you if you try.

"new data shows it's not going to hit us"

This is why you are not a scientist, but a cult follower. Your leaders continuously proclaim impending doom, and when the dates come and go, you continue to believe. Fucking stupid.

Comment Re: Blacks are dumber than whites (Score 1) 96

There is a continuum. Currently every "capitalist" country actually has a mixed market (ie they have a central bank and thus the centrally plan the price of money, the foundation of free exchange) rapidly sliding into one form of socialism or another. Those that adhere most closely to the capitalist ideal do the best (think Singapore), while those that stray the furthest inevitably collapse (think Zimbabwe--and note that we have the exact same monetary policy as they did leading up to their hyperinflation).

Comment Re:Why should we care about faked data? (Score 1, Insightful) 735

You're talking about it as if there isn't any cost. Do you have ANY idea how many people will starve TO DEATH if fuel becomes more expensive? Is it really worth murdering 50 million Africans in the most horrible way possible to prevent a disaster that might only be real in your mind?

Another alarmist like you used the asteroid analogy. I came back with this: you predicted the path that would intersect with Earth. We observed the area where it should have been at a given time and found nothing was there. Does that modify your claim that we will be hit? If so, you are a scientist, if not, then you are a religion. Guess what climate alarmists do every time one of their predictions fail?

Comment Re:Catastrophic man-made global warming... (Score 1) 488

You should read the article better. The eastern part isn't even 15 meters deep. It's not navigable by anything of size.

And it was first navigated in 1906. That should tell you something. You should also be told something by the fact that the wiki has a listing of EVERY SINGLE SUCCESSFUL TRAVERSAL of the passage, all the way up to today. It's not open any more today than it was in 1906.

Comment Re:Why should we care about faked data? (Score 0) 735

Just saying it's discredited doesn't make it discredited, however much you want to pretend like your faith is science.

Still waiting for low lying islands to go underwater. Let that happen, then I will give your ideas a second look. I don't think it will. You know, that or any of the other idiotic claims you people have made over the years (ice-free north pole, or a series of hurricane swarms somewhere/everywhere).

Comment Re:That's nothing (Score 1) 258

"What if the braking distance is too long?"

So, are these crowds of people just teleporting in front of the cars or what? You aren't likely to be running into people when you are going more than 30 mph, and you can stop within 10 meters or so. They would have to put a LOT of effort into hiding from the thing, and jump out at the last second.

"That isn't my experience of the system fitted to my 44 tonne truck"

I have no idea what you are talking about, but unless you JUST bought that truck within the last few months (when Mercedes started offering partial self driving functionality on big trucks), then you are talking about some other kind of system. And besides, we are talking about cars here, not big rigs. Cars are a lot easier to stop.

Comment Re:Whatever. (Score 0) 488

Doctors told the mother of a friend of mine that she had cancer. Put her on intense chemo. So intense she lost an eye, and lived in absolute misery for a couple of years. Then she went down to MD Anderson and the doctor told her she didn't have cancer, and never did.

People do awful things to other people in their own self interest. Including lying, fabricating data, etc.

Your meteor prediction is a good one. For example, you would predict an orbital path that would bring it near Earth in 15 years. The world holds its breath as it watches for the close approach. It doesn't happen. What does that do to your impact theory? If you took a note from a climate scientist, you would double down rather than changing your mind.

Comment Re:Catastrophic man-made global warming... (Score 2, Insightful) 488

How about when A SINGLE ONE of the predictions made by the priests of the AGW comes true?

We were supposed to have an ice-free northwest passage, record-breaking hurricane seasons, and low lying islands were supposed to slip beneath the waves. NONE of it has happened.

Scientists make predictions based on theory. When observations don't match predictions, the theory is modified. This does not happen in climate "science", therefore it is not science.

Comment Re:The general consensus amongst many Americans (Score 1) 488

"The increased energy in the system is already turning all of weather to a parade of freak outliers and unpredictable quirky events that occasionally spike off the charts"

Yeah, I'm posting right now from the wall of the 78th cat 5 hurricane to hit the US coast in the last month. It's terrible, this global warming!

When your predictions are CONSISTENTLY wrong, it's time to re-examine your theory, not double down. Actual scientists know this.

Slashdot Top Deals

Whom the gods would destroy, they first teach BASIC.