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"
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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?
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
And
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?
He is not blowing those things up. Bush and Obama did most of the destruction
And yet having lived through the Bush/Cheney regime you deliberately elected another would be dictator knowing full well who he is and what he is like. I think you like tyranny.
You should be ashamed of your inability to reason.
You elected Trump. Some measure of humility on your part is in order when talking to the people who didn't, given shortly you will need to ask us to help you get rid of him.
As for Trump, I'm not sure what to make of him. I think his actions are boneheaded because they're going to create international retaliation against US IT firms, thus likely harming the domestic tech sector
Also, he is blowing up the very foundational concepts of the country that happen to be the things that made America powerful and great (like freedom of movement, freedom of speech, immigration etc) - he is fundamentally anti-American.
Post enlightenment I should think. Whereas Trump's supporters have a worldview similiar to Mugabe's Zanu PF, or the Hutu militia. Doesn't matter who dies, or what lies we have to believe, as long as we can find some way to GET the other tribe for their imagined ills, everything it is the fault of other tribes and nations, we ourselves are oppressed and nothing we do is wrong etc etc.
I presume you also think that witches float?
No. But if a A guy says "hey, I molested these women" and then later the women say "yep, he molested me" before being silenced by the formers lawyers, I tend to think that people who come along and say the story is not true *with no evidence to back their assertions* are probably talking out of their arses, particularly when they have demonstrated the sort of undying loyalty that trump's supporters do to his moronic, venal, paranoid delusional ravings, as we've seen here.
We specifically elected the least sexual predatory person between the two. Hillary is a straight up rapist enabler.
Number of people Hillary has raped:0. Number of people Donald has raped: probably more than 1. Number of people Donald has molested, by his own admission: many.
Trump maybe did a few less than savory things, but I don't see compelling evidence that he committed rape.
So essentially, your evidence that he is not a molester/rapist is that you personally can't believe it. Well, that's powerful testimony indeed.
Because Trump is all about stopping people from saying things he doesn't like. He's awake, in the middle of the night, rage tweeting against citizens who dare mention aspects of the past that he doesn't like being brought up. He is, in every sense, FOR the banning of 'bad' words (words constructed to form sentences describing facts that make him look bad).
Sounds to me like Trump, and his supporters, are SJWs by the given definition.
By igniting a trade war you mean competing and not just massively importing (defacto not competing and bolstering China's economy)?
China is not a signatory to the TPP, the whole point of the TPP was to include the US and exclude China, giving the US preferential access into those markets. No deal, then no preferential access.
Who cares about the Philippines, Singapore and Malaysia markets which are pathetically small for goods that the US would even consider exporting?
Anybody who wants influence in SE Asia cares about access to those markets and the influence that trade relationships get you. The recent events in the South china sea demonstrates why the Philippines are important strategically.
So you are going to have the rich countries give up all patents for the fight against global warming and helping the developing countries industrialize? Didn't think so.
Sounds like you dion't even know what 'industrialise' means. Hint: nobody needs to reinvent the car just to build cars.
They would love to be able to do it independently.
No, they wouldn't. If they are thinking about industrialising at all, they intend to do it the same way that everybody else did.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds legit.
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.
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?
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?
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? http://reason.com/archives/201...
That was your argument after all. Now back it up.
You need to learn to moderate your tone.
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?
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?
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
And
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?
If you don't know that, why are you posting?
How is Trump limiting your freedom of speech?
He hasn't. But then, like most people, I'm not an American.
People who move to a place to then try and impose the rules of the places they moved from are not the type of people who are wanted.
Not everybody behaves like an American tourist.
Every cloud has a silver lining
He is not blowing those things up. Bush and Obama did most of the destruction
And yet having lived through the Bush/Cheney regime you deliberately elected another would be dictator knowing full well who he is and what he is like. I think you like tyranny.
You should be ashamed of your inability to reason.
You elected Trump. Some measure of humility on your part is in order when talking to the people who didn't, given shortly you will need to ask us to help you get rid of him.
As for Trump, I'm not sure what to make of him. I think his actions are boneheaded because they're going to create international retaliation against US IT firms, thus likely harming the domestic tech sector
Also, he is blowing up the very foundational concepts of the country that happen to be the things that made America powerful and great (like freedom of movement, freedom of speech, immigration etc) - he is fundamentally anti-American.
Are people who came before them "talented"?
You mean, since the years of GW Bush, right?
Are you uncomfortable talking about Trump?
Enlightened moral philosophy you have there.
Post enlightenment I should think. Whereas Trump's supporters have a worldview similiar to Mugabe's Zanu PF, or the Hutu militia. Doesn't matter who dies, or what lies we have to believe, as long as we can find some way to GET the other tribe for their imagined ills, everything it is the fault of other tribes and nations, we ourselves are oppressed and nothing we do is wrong etc etc.
I presume you also think that witches float?
No. But if a A guy says "hey, I molested these women" and then later the women say "yep, he molested me" before being silenced by the formers lawyers, I tend to think that people who come along and say the story is not true *with no evidence to back their assertions* are probably talking out of their arses, particularly when they have demonstrated the sort of undying loyalty that trump's supporters do to his moronic, venal, paranoid delusional ravings, as we've seen here.
We specifically elected the least sexual predatory person between the two. Hillary is a straight up rapist enabler.
Number of people Hillary has raped:0. Number of people Donald has raped: probably more than 1. Number of people Donald has molested, by his own admission: many.
Trump maybe did a few less than savory things, but I don't see compelling evidence that he committed rape.
So essentially, your evidence that he is not a molester/rapist is that you personally can't believe it. Well, that's powerful testimony indeed.
Interesting.
Because Trump is all about stopping people from saying things he doesn't like. He's awake, in the middle of the night, rage tweeting against citizens who dare mention aspects of the past that he doesn't like being brought up. He is, in every sense, FOR the banning of 'bad' words (words constructed to form sentences describing facts that make him look bad).
Sounds to me like Trump, and his supporters, are SJWs by the given definition.
So the difference between the SJW's and the people that aren't SJW's is that the former are interested in justice?
Gee, sure sounds like they are the problem...
Who are the SJWs? Do they support Trump?
By igniting a trade war you mean competing and not just massively importing (defacto not competing and bolstering China's economy)?
China is not a signatory to the TPP, the whole point of the TPP was to include the US and exclude China, giving the US preferential access into those markets. No deal, then no preferential access.
Who cares about the Philippines, Singapore and Malaysia markets which are pathetically small for goods that the US would even consider exporting?
Anybody who wants influence in SE Asia cares about access to those markets and the influence that trade relationships get you. The recent events in the South china sea demonstrates why the Philippines are important strategically.
Plants consume CO2 and H2O so of course you'll have more plants. Fuck this "citation needed" Wonkypedia shit. I
I asked for citations because I'm skeptical of your ideas. If you don't want people to accept your ideas, why post them?
https://phys.org/news/2013-07-...
You obviously didn't read your citation, which contradicts your assertion.
I'm still to hear one big negative factor of increased CO2 levels and global warming.
Explain how your ignorance is our problem.
So you are going to have the rich countries give up all patents for the fight against global warming and helping the developing countries industrialize? Didn't think so.
Sounds like you dion't even know what 'industrialise' means. Hint: nobody needs to reinvent the car just to build cars.
They would love to be able to do it independently.
No, they wouldn't. If they are thinking about industrialising at all, they intend to do it the same way that everybody else did.