A lot of the anti-globalwarming movement rely on classic FUD, throwing enough shit on the wall and counting on that something will stick.
Just like creationists. There aren't any "creation scientists" trying to build a coherent theory of creationism. They're all just busy nit-picking something that they hope will cast doubt on some tiny aspect of the huge pile of evidence that supports a conclusion that they don't want to accept.
And just like the anti-globalwarming movement, there are crowds of people standing by to gobble up any claim they make.
Climate change is big business. Those in the profession who don't push the agenda end up hungry. Money corrupts all, and at this point I basically have a hard time believing anyone 100%. Scare tactics work, and generate money. And when caught in a flat out lie, over overexageration it becomes a 1 step forward, 2 steps back as far as trust with me.
So how come scientists in all the other fields are too stoopid to get in on the scam? Can't astronomers just make up claims about a non-existent asteroid that's going to smash us later this century if we don't poor big money into further research, and rely on greed to keep anyone from revealing the fraud? Physicists, astronomers, biologists, geologists - all too dull witted or honest to do what those clever climatologists have done.
...that tack is unlikely to get anywhere with the 8 percent or so of highly-engaged Americans who reject the idea of a warming planet, and are highly motivated to disregard anything that says otherwise.
We are pleased to announce that in recognition of their high engagement and their high motivation to disregard facts, those 8% are all eligible to a Darwin award.
I think the Darwin Award would only be appropriate if their actions harmed themselves without having the same negative consequences on the rest of us.
It's insane how so many other areas of study are just accepted when 99% of scientists agree, but this one is different. Shall I listen to some turd on the internet, or people who've been studying it most of their lives and actually know what they are talking about?!
Rejection of creationism or global warming is comprehensible, because of the strong ulterior motives. What I don't get is how rabidly so many people here oppose the existence of dark matter. I'm having trouble grokking a financial or religious motive for that one.
....when it's extremely cold in the winter, scientists say thats just normal weather, but when it's extremely hot in the summer, it's global warming?
Maybe you could make us a list of scientists who are saying that.
We know about global warming, not from observing warm days, but from longitudinal measurements from all over the world.
And of course, we understand the mechanism. The "greenhouse" property of certain gasses that we have been spewing into the atmosphere in ever-increasing amounts since the beginning of the industrial age has been known IIRC for about 200 years.
Also, global warming doesn't imply warm winters in any particular location. It means more thermal energy in our atmosphere and oceans, which can destabilize that very complex dynamical system that we call "weather".
For an example of a mechanism whereby global warming can make winter colder in specific locations, see "The Winters of Our Discontent" in the December 2012 Scientific American.
But then, I'm guessing that you're not particularly interested in learning how scientists figure out what's going on, or you wouldn't be posting such nonsense. A "first post!" would have made you look less foolish.
But second, that tack is unlikely to get anywhere with the 8 percent or so of highly-engaged Americans who reject the idea of a warming planet, and are highly motivated to disregard anything that says otherwise.
I'm surprised the figure isn't much higher. The denial movement has been quite strong lately, even here on slashdot where you might expect some degree of scientific literacy.
Given the high percentage of ACs among the anti-GW posts, you have to wonder whether they are ordinary slashdotters or shills. Or trolls.
Ditto for the many creationists, though I don't think so many of them are ACs.
Given that we have people who sit around all day watching television hoping to find something they can complain to the FCC about, I find myself wondering if you've got groups of people who sit around "watching" the internet for stories to cast doubt on.
Let's look at this like intelligent human brings and not fucking retards. Who has the most to gain by all of this? Do you actually believe scientists are going t join together in a vast cabal to deceive people about AGW for research grants?
Fuckinghell the pseudo skeptics are abandoning any notion of reasoned debate. I don't know whether to pity you or mock you.
That is, incidentally, exactly the position that creationists take.
When the evidence overwhelmingly supports a conclusion you don't like, invent a conspiracy.
I don't see what's so bad about global warming, especially looking out my window right now and seeing snow on the roofs of the outbuildings.
The eastern USA and NW Europe may be in for another snow-intensive winter because of global warming. If you'd like to take a break from your knee-jerk denialism and actually learn something interesting, pick up a copy of the current Scientific American and read about the mechanism.
This is nothing other than egghead research "scientists" trying to keep the gravy train going and looking for more of our (yours and mine) money to sit on their asses and debate the issue.
Roight, guv. Basic scientific research is so much more profitable than shilling for Big Oil. The National Science Foundation has so much more money and so much less to spend it on than ExxonMobil, the Koch Brothers and Fox Izvestia.
I wonder if the people that make that argument are aware of how little a slice of those "big" NSF grants actually go into the scientists' own pockets. For typical university scientisst, a $10,000,000 grant means that several of them earn 1-3 months of summer salary for 3-5 years, at they same monthly that they get paid during the school year, which is to say between "somewhat" and "a lot" less than the pay rate of scientists in industry.
(You forgot to mention AAAAALLLLL GOOOOORRRRRE!)
And United Nations, New World Order, Liberal Plot to Destroy capitalism, etc.
Even if the paywall did work I would never pay considering their shameful yellow journalism leading up to the Iraq war.
Now be fair. The fact that they didn't really have a mushroom cloud pointed at our heads is just another manifestation of reality's liberal bias. In a fair and balanced world they would have had one, and the MSM's warmongering would have been exactly the right thing to do.
I'm sure that that line of reasoning also proves that the MSM is liberal, but I can't quite pin down the argument...
If his life was indeed in danger, he handled the situation well. By appearing to behave like a lunatic (on the internet), he got the attention of the international news media.
OK, that explains one. Now why do the rest of us behave like lunatics on the internet?
If Belize is a problem for him, why doesn't he move back to the US? He still has his US citizenship, and Guatemala will seek to deport him to the US.
How can he have a valid asylum claim if his country of citizenship isn't giving him a problem? Or is he going to claim that the US will extradite him to Belize?
I think the asylum request is an instance of "playing the last card in your hand, and hope it wins the trick".
Or maybe he was asking for a different kind of asylum.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of the anti-globalwarming movement rely on classic FUD, throwing enough shit on the wall and counting on that something will stick.
Just like creationists. There aren't any "creation scientists" trying to build a coherent theory of creationism. They're all just busy nit-picking something that they hope will cast doubt on some tiny aspect of the huge pile of evidence that supports a conclusion that they don't want to accept.
And just like the anti-globalwarming movement, there are crowds of people standing by to gobble up any claim they make.
Climate change is big business. Those in the profession who don't push the agenda end up hungry. Money corrupts all, and at this point I basically have a hard time believing anyone 100%. Scare tactics work, and generate money. And when caught in a flat out lie, over overexageration it becomes a 1 step forward, 2 steps back as far as trust with me.
So how come scientists in all the other fields are too stoopid to get in on the scam? Can't astronomers just make up claims about a non-existent asteroid that's going to smash us later this century if we don't poor big money into further research, and rely on greed to keep anyone from revealing the fraud? Physicists, astronomers, biologists, geologists - all too dull witted or honest to do what those clever climatologists have done.
We are pleased to announce that in recognition of their high engagement and their high motivation to disregard facts, those 8% are all eligible to a Darwin award.
I think the Darwin Award would only be appropriate if their actions harmed themselves without having the same negative consequences on the rest of us.
It's insane how so many other areas of study are just accepted when 99% of scientists agree, but this one is different. Shall I listen to some turd on the internet, or people who've been studying it most of their lives and actually know what they are talking about?!
Rejection of creationism or global warming is comprehensible, because of the strong ulterior motives. What I don't get is how rabidly so many people here oppose the existence of dark matter. I'm having trouble grokking a financial or religious motive for that one.
....when it's extremely cold in the winter, scientists say thats just normal weather, but when it's extremely hot in the summer, it's global warming?
Maybe you could make us a list of scientists who are saying that.
We know about global warming, not from observing warm days, but from longitudinal measurements from all over the world.
And of course, we understand the mechanism. The "greenhouse" property of certain gasses that we have been spewing into the atmosphere in ever-increasing amounts since the beginning of the industrial age has been known IIRC for about 200 years.
Also, global warming doesn't imply warm winters in any particular location. It means more thermal energy in our atmosphere and oceans, which can destabilize that very complex dynamical system that we call "weather".
For an example of a mechanism whereby global warming can make winter colder in specific locations, see "The Winters of Our Discontent" in the December 2012 Scientific American.
But then, I'm guessing that you're not particularly interested in learning how scientists figure out what's going on, or you wouldn't be posting such nonsense. A "first post!" would have made you look less foolish.
Yeah, that's the first think that caught my eye. How do you personally experience global warming? A hot day?
How can an individual's experiences ever rise above anecdote?
But second, that tack is unlikely to get anywhere with the 8 percent or so of highly-engaged Americans who reject the idea of a warming planet, and are highly motivated to disregard anything that says otherwise.
I'm surprised the figure isn't much higher. The denial movement has been quite strong lately, even here on slashdot where you might expect some degree of scientific literacy.
Given the high percentage of ACs among the anti-GW posts, you have to wonder whether they are ordinary slashdotters or shills. Or trolls.
Ditto for the many creationists, though I don't think so many of them are ACs.
Given that we have people who sit around all day watching television hoping to find something they can complain to the FCC about, I find myself wondering if you've got groups of people who sit around "watching" the internet for stories to cast doubt on.
Let's look at this like intelligent human brings and not fucking retards. Who has the most to gain by all of this? Do you actually believe scientists are going t join together in a vast cabal to deceive people about AGW for research grants?
Fuckinghell the pseudo skeptics are abandoning any notion of reasoned debate. I don't know whether to pity you or mock you.
That is, incidentally, exactly the position that creationists take.
When the evidence overwhelmingly supports a conclusion you don't like, invent a conspiracy.
... ponzi scheme!
For Ponzi schemes, "nb4" is indeed the correct strategy.
Errors happen, and have to be handled. With code.
If you have an alternative method in mind, please share the secret.
I don't see what's so bad about global warming, especially looking out my window right now and seeing snow on the roofs of the outbuildings.
The eastern USA and NW Europe may be in for another snow-intensive winter because of global warming. If you'd like to take a break from your knee-jerk denialism and actually learn something interesting, pick up a copy of the current Scientific American and read about the mechanism.
See, the country I'm in is well above the sea level, so I guess I should just sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
Problem is that the rats tend to crawl upwards when the ship is sinking.
Also, shifts in the weather zones is going to cause a lot of the agricultural Haves to become Have-Nots, and vice versa.
I suggest that you do your sitting back in a bomb shelter.
This is nothing other than egghead research "scientists" trying to keep the gravy train going and looking for more of our (yours and mine) money to sit on their asses and debate the issue.
Roight, guv. Basic scientific research is so much more profitable than shilling for Big Oil. The National Science Foundation has so much more money and so much less to spend it on than ExxonMobil, the Koch Brothers and Fox Izvestia.
I wonder if the people that make that argument are aware of how little a slice of those "big" NSF grants actually go into the scientists' own pockets. For typical university scientisst, a $10,000,000 grant means that several of them earn 1-3 months of summer salary for 3-5 years, at they same monthly that they get paid during the school year, which is to say between "somewhat" and "a lot" less than the pay rate of scientists in industry.
(You forgot to mention AAAAALLLLL GOOOOORRRRRE!)
And United Nations, New World Order, Liberal Plot to Destroy capitalism, etc.
We need to get real about this. NOW.
At least you got one thing right.
I'm not sure it's corruption. It's more like taking advantage of a system that is optimized for helping the Haves get more.
welcome our new middle-finger-brandishing overlord.
You make the mistake of expecting standards. Standards died with the advent of 24-hour "news" channels.
sh1t
If you were *really* clever you would have substituted in the Roman numeral.
Even if the paywall did work I would never pay considering their shameful yellow journalism leading up to the Iraq war.
Now be fair. The fact that they didn't really have a mushroom cloud pointed at our heads is just another manifestation of reality's liberal bias. In a fair and balanced world they would have had one, and the MSM's warmongering would have been exactly the right thing to do.
I'm sure that that line of reasoning also proves that the MSM is liberal, but I can't quite pin down the argument...
open them with no traces and the hotel staff gets blamed for the burglary
What I want to know is, will Q get his bypass-kit updates for free, or will Her Majesty have to shell out for them?
Full disclosure by a third party.
If his life was indeed in danger, he handled the situation well. By appearing to behave like a lunatic (on the internet), he got the attention of the international news media.
OK, that explains one. Now why do the rest of us behave like lunatics on the internet?
This is by no means an end. This story will continue on until McAfee is in the ground I'd suspect.
Or longer, if the conspiracy theory crowd takes an interest in it.
If Belize is a problem for him, why doesn't he move back to the US? He still has his US citizenship, and Guatemala will seek to deport him to the US.
How can he have a valid asylum claim if his country of citizenship isn't giving him a problem? Or is he going to claim that the US will extradite him to Belize?
I think the asylum request is an instance of "playing the last card in your hand, and hope it wins the trick".
Or maybe he was asking for a different kind of asylum.
John McAfree?
Cue the "Fee McAfree" movement.