What sort of apologist BS are you trying to pass off here? Federal government spending is completely out of control. From
Dave Ramsey .
What would happen if John Q. Public and his wife called my show with these kinds of numbers? Hereâ(TM)s how their financial situation would stack up:
If their household income was $55,000 per year, theyd actually be spending $96,500â"$41,500 more than they made! That means theyre spending 175% of their annual income! So, in 2011 theyd add $41,500 of debt to their current credit card debt of $366,000!
I agree. To me, the best thing to counteract group think would be to a bi-valence of scores. There are many occasion I only want to see the 0's and 1's on a story as that's where I think the most relevant and insightful comments are. It's not easy to do in the current system. Having a "flip" to turn 5's into 0's, 4's into 1's, etc. would make the site more useful to both sides of a polarizing issue.
Climate scientists have moved beyond whether CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming. You can read the signature of CO2 capturing radiant energy in the spectrum of the planet. I have read the IPCC AR4 Working Group I Summary for Policy Makers. What's your point? You don't like the way they're simplifying the uncertainty for non-scientists? If they can't be virtually certain about something but only consider it very likely we can ignore the risk? Science doesn't work in absolutes (except zero).
The WG1 report is all about the science and doesn't get into danger, it's Working Group II where that part comes in. That's where they examine the probable effects of global warming.
LOL!! So they're "simplifying uncertainty"? And "that's how science works"? The summary for policy makers is marketing speak, *not* science and you're either ignorant of what real science is or fooling yourself. Which is it?
Which one of the values above represents "settled science"? I think the only thing that is settled is that it's going to get slightly warmer, and that prediction is seriously in doubt.
When do we get to call the IPCC out on the failures of their "Climate Scenarios"? (they're not brave enough for predictions).
Or is that something we'll just sweep under the rug because it doesn't empower unscrupulous scientists and crooked bureaucrats and politicians?
Oh yeah Working Group II. Thanks for mentioning that. That's where they predict the Himalayan Glaciers will melt by 2030 right?
Try studying up on the scientific method. It's up to the Climate "Scientists" (i use that term very loosely) to prove that CO2 causes dangerous warming. About as close to real evidence you'll get is in the latest IPCC report where confidence is danced about with terms like...
"In this Summary for Policymakers, the following terms have been used to
indicate the assessed likelihood, using expert judgement, of an outcome or
a result: Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence, Extremely likely >
95%, Very likely > 90%, Likely > 66%, More likely than not > 50%, Unlikely
33%, Very unlikely 10%, Extremely unlikely 5% (see Box TS.1 for more
details)."
Read it for yourself with an open mind. The notion of catastrophic man made global warming has *nothing* to back it up.
www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
Why do climate scientists need real world observations? I thought they already new the evil co2 spewing human race would destroy itself by raising the temperature 5.3456345 degrees on July 4 2104 at 10:01 and 234 ms.
Sorry for the double post, but your attitude (which seems to be quite popular at/. ) is one of extreme gullibility. You completely trust not only the scientists, but the bureaucrats, lobbiests and bankers who are sure that sending a torrent of money their way will solve the warming problem that will arrive in 100 years. LOL!!! Truly a naive position if ever there was one. What is scientific about the AGW hypothesis? *NOTHING*. It's some untestable models and some really bad statistics with a million "rider grants" that want to make sure they get funded. Those models haven't gotten the last 10 years right until *this* year. What does that say for any confidence that should be had in this travesty of pseudo-science, lobbying, environmentalism and socialsim?
All talking points you've received from on high. Sorry. Your willingness to barter away my freedoms based on little more than some rhetoric from some lobbiests, bureaucrats and scientists who are all in line at the gravy train. All parties are free to solve this perceived problem on their own without any interference from the government. You and those who subscribe to the Catastrophic man made global warming arguments would seem to be better at rationalizing and making self serving statements than actually proving anything about the environment or solving any of its problems.
These mods are just hilarious. I imagine if I say something like cap and trade is unwarranted because the climates sensitivity to CO2 is not known I would get modded troll. Could you just mark this post as a troll please? I'd hate to increase my carbon footprint with another post.
So Mr. Moderator. What went through your head when you modded Troll? Let me guess. You saw "Enviro Chicken Little" and thought "OH, he must be one of those DENIERS I've heard about in Mrs. Kerbapple's class. I'll do everyone a service and mod troll!!! Yipeee!!
Remarkably one-sided point of view. You think the only lobbyists in Washington are in the Oil/Coal Industry? The lobbying effort on the other side is massive as well, and guess what? You actually get something for cheap energy! Here's another. Guess what the Green Energy lobby will give you? A massive utility/petroleum price increase!! Good for you Mr. Naive!!
Ahh yes, defer to your betters and put on the blinders. Why are you unwilling to use that thing on the top of your head on this subject. There are plenty of Climate Scientists who don't think the recent increase in temperatures are anything to worry about.
What you and the clique of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warmists want is to limit my freedom for no good reason. They are at liberty to do what they want about the CO2 problem without taking my money, but would prefer to have their hands in everyone's pocket. It's no better than stealing. I leave you with a quote from Thomas Sowell that I think you would do well to read *and* understand.
****
Freedom is not simply the right of intellectuals to circulate their merchandise. It is, above all, the right of ordinary people to find elbow room for themselves and a refuge from the rampaging presumptions of their 'betters.
Thomas Sowell
If you think it's causing some great calamity with the environment, why don't you just invent something that provides energy that doesn't use CO2? Why do you have to take my money to further your neurosis about CO2?
That's about the same effect any cap and trade/tax will have with global warming. If any of you enviro chicken littles were honest, you'd admit that these taxes/cap and trade schemesare about power and money and nothing else.
Why do I have to live on a planet with communists like yourself?
* Even the IPCC is only 90% confident that the recent warming is caused by man (and they overstate *everything*). Is the IPCC in 10% denial?
* Many Climate Scientists disagree with the IPCC. See Dr. Roy Spencer, Roger Pielke Sr., and Richard Lindzen to name a few. Go out and read from the wealth of information that has been put out there by them and others. Since they disagree with the dogma of catastrophic AGW, are they in denial? Could it be that they just happen to have an informed opinion counter to the Warmista's Dogma?
* Currently, you and all your Warmista friends are perfectly free to build a carbon free paradise where-ever you see fit. You can build out Solar/Wind/Geo-Thermal till the cows come home. Nothings stopping you. *You can save the planet for us*, but the reason you won't is because you want power over others. Completely UnAmerican, and also completely in the tradition of top down planned economies like the SU and Nazi Germany.
* Your opinions on Electric vs. internal combustion engines are so naive it's frightening. Diesel Electrics burn (you guessed it) DIESEL!! Calling that halfway there is a joke. Comrade Stalin, how would you like the kulaks to plow their fields with their electric tractors? Pull them with a team of oxen?
* Which climate past are you referring to? The one of the completely discredited hockey stick whose margins of error swamped todays temperature records? Are there other Hockey Sticks you'd prefer to show us?
* Finally, why don't you let the economy help itself subjecting it to your central planning comrade Stalin? Go out and find a better method of creating Solar Panels, or Wind Mills or GeoThermal, etc. That would help the economy immensely. Your centrally planned tax increase will only fall on those that are least able to pay.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point. Now Slashdot Groupthink will mod you into obvlivion.
It's not volunteer labor except in very rare cases.
Exactly. I'd never use chrome for other than testing compatibility. Firefox and noscript thanks.
What sort of apologist BS are you trying to pass off here? Federal government spending is completely out of control. From Dave Ramsey . What would happen if John Q. Public and his wife called my show with these kinds of numbers? Hereâ(TM)s how their financial situation would stack up: If their household income was $55,000 per year, theyd actually be spending $96,500â"$41,500 more than they made! That means theyre spending 175% of their annual income! So, in 2011 theyd add $41,500 of debt to their current credit card debt of $366,000!
I agree. To me, the best thing to counteract group think would be to a bi-valence of scores. There are many occasion I only want to see the 0's and 1's on a story as that's where I think the most relevant and insightful comments are. It's not easy to do in the current system. Having a "flip" to turn 5's into 0's, 4's into 1's, etc. would make the site more useful to both sides of a polarizing issue.
Climate scientists have moved beyond whether CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming. You can read the signature of CO2 capturing radiant energy in the spectrum of the planet. I have read the IPCC AR4 Working Group I Summary for Policy Makers. What's your point? You don't like the way they're simplifying the uncertainty for non-scientists? If they can't be virtually certain about something but only consider it very likely we can ignore the risk? Science doesn't work in absolutes (except zero).
The WG1 report is all about the science and doesn't get into danger, it's Working Group II where that part comes in. That's where they examine the probable effects of global warming.
LOL!! So they're "simplifying uncertainty"? And "that's how science works"? The summary for policy makers is marketing speak, *not* science and you're either ignorant of what real science is or fooling yourself. Which is it? Which one of the values above represents "settled science"? I think the only thing that is settled is that it's going to get slightly warmer, and that prediction is seriously in doubt. When do we get to call the IPCC out on the failures of their "Climate Scenarios"? (they're not brave enough for predictions). Or is that something we'll just sweep under the rug because it doesn't empower unscrupulous scientists and crooked bureaucrats and politicians? Oh yeah Working Group II. Thanks for mentioning that. That's where they predict the Himalayan Glaciers will melt by 2030 right?
It's good to see the sheeple at slashdot are still myopic. Technically skill that never transfers to any other field, *especially* common sense.
Stupidity? I already told you I agree with the superior Climate overminds. Or do you doubt their divinely inspired wisodm AC?
Try studying up on the scientific method. It's up to the Climate "Scientists" (i use that term very loosely) to prove that CO2 causes dangerous warming. About as close to real evidence you'll get is in the latest IPCC report where confidence is danced about with terms like ...
"In this Summary for Policymakers, the following terms have been used to
indicate the assessed likelihood, using expert judgement, of an outcome or
a result: Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence, Extremely likely >
95%, Very likely > 90%, Likely > 66%, More likely than not > 50%, Unlikely
33%, Very unlikely 10%, Extremely unlikely 5% (see Box TS.1 for more
details)."
Read it for yourself with an open mind. The notion of catastrophic man made global warming has *nothing* to back it up.
www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
Why do climate scientists need real world observations? I thought they already new the evil co2 spewing human race would destroy itself by raising the temperature 5.3456345 degrees on July 4 2104 at 10:01 and 234 ms.
Yes, Some of the nuances of group think still evade me. Thanks for pointing that out. :)
Sorry for the double post, but your attitude (which seems to be quite popular at /. ) is one of extreme gullibility. You completely trust not only the scientists, but the bureaucrats, lobbiests and bankers who are sure that sending a torrent of money their way will solve the warming problem that will arrive in 100 years. LOL!!! Truly a naive position if ever there was one. What is scientific about the AGW hypothesis? *NOTHING*. It's some untestable models and some really bad statistics with a million "rider grants" that want to make sure they get funded. Those models haven't gotten the last 10 years right until *this* year. What does that say for any confidence that should be had in this travesty of pseudo-science, lobbying, environmentalism and socialsim?
All talking points you've received from on high. Sorry. Your willingness to barter away my freedoms based on little more than some rhetoric from some lobbiests, bureaucrats and scientists who are all in line at the gravy train. All parties are free to solve this perceived problem on their own without any interference from the government. You and those who subscribe to the Catastrophic man made global warming arguments would seem to be better at rationalizing and making self serving statements than actually proving anything about the environment or solving any of its problems.
Great line of reasoning there. Hey!!! So the Catastrophic man made global warming argument was a bunch of hooey, but at least we're not terrorists!!
That says *nothing* about whether the warming is man made or natural. It's completely unrepsonsive to the issue.
These mods are just hilarious. I imagine if I say something like cap and trade is unwarranted because the climates sensitivity to CO2 is not known I would get modded troll. Could you just mark this post as a troll please? I'd hate to increase my carbon footprint with another post.
Yeah, you go do that without the tax credits genius. See how long you stay in business.
So Mr. Moderator. What went through your head when you modded Troll? Let me guess. You saw "Enviro Chicken Little" and thought "OH, he must be one of those DENIERS I've heard about in Mrs. Kerbapple's class. I'll do everyone a service and mod troll!!! Yipeee!!
Remarkably one-sided point of view. You think the only lobbyists in Washington are in the Oil/Coal Industry? The lobbying effort on the other side is massive as well, and guess what? You actually get something for cheap energy! Here's another. Guess what the Green Energy lobby will give you? A massive utility/petroleum price increase!! Good for you Mr. Naive!!
Ahh yes, defer to your betters and put on the blinders. Why are you unwilling to use that thing on the top of your head on this subject. There are plenty of Climate Scientists who don't think the recent increase in temperatures are anything to worry about.
What you and the clique of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warmists want is to limit my freedom for no good reason. They are at liberty to do what they want about the CO2 problem without taking my money, but would prefer to have their hands in everyone's pocket. It's no better than stealing. I leave you with a quote from Thomas Sowell that I think you would do well to read *and* understand.
****
Freedom is not simply the right of intellectuals to circulate their merchandise. It is, above all, the right of ordinary people to find elbow room for themselves and a refuge from the rampaging presumptions of their 'betters.
Thomas Sowell
Because it will make some scientists, bureaucrats and the green lobby rich. These people don't care about the environment, just their jobs.
If you think it's causing some great calamity with the environment, why don't you just invent something that provides energy that doesn't use CO2? Why do you have to take my money to further your neurosis about CO2?
Or perhaps to take money from people who don't believe in AGW and give it to needy scientests and bureaucrats?
That's about the same effect any cap and trade/tax will have with global warming. If any of you enviro chicken littles were honest, you'd admit that these taxes /cap and trade schemesare about power and money and nothing else.
Why do I have to live on a planet with communists like yourself?
* Even the IPCC is only 90% confident that the recent warming is caused by man (and they overstate *everything*). Is the IPCC in 10% denial?
* Many Climate Scientists disagree with the IPCC. See Dr. Roy Spencer, Roger Pielke Sr., and Richard Lindzen to name a few. Go out and read from the wealth of information that has been put out there by them and others. Since they disagree with the dogma of catastrophic AGW, are they in denial? Could it be that they just happen to have an informed opinion counter to the Warmista's Dogma?
* Currently, you and all your Warmista friends are perfectly free to build a carbon free paradise where-ever you see fit. You can build out Solar/Wind/Geo-Thermal till the cows come home. Nothings stopping you. *You can save the planet for us*, but the reason you won't is because you want power over others. Completely UnAmerican, and also completely in the tradition of top down planned economies like the SU and Nazi Germany.
* Your opinions on Electric vs. internal combustion engines are so naive it's frightening. Diesel Electrics burn (you guessed it) DIESEL!! Calling that halfway there is a joke. Comrade Stalin, how would you like the kulaks to plow their fields with their electric tractors? Pull them with a team of oxen?
* Which climate past are you referring to? The one of the completely discredited hockey stick whose margins of error swamped todays temperature records? Are there other Hockey Sticks you'd prefer to show us?
* Finally, why don't you let the economy help itself subjecting it to your central planning comrade Stalin? Go out and find a better method of creating Solar Panels, or Wind Mills or GeoThermal, etc. That would help the economy immensely. Your centrally planned tax increase will only fall on those that are least able to pay.