We can go back to the moon, there is just no reason. Other than beating the soviets, there was no reason to go the first time.
Yes. Of course the same issue applies equally to Mars: apart from quasi-religious, nobody has articulated a reason for us to go. Hopefully the truth of this comparison will sink in before we waste too much money on this monorail venture.
Re:There is an illusion today among younger people
on
Twilight of the Bomb
·
· Score: 1
Neither do you, and you're wrong. You saying you're not doesn't make it so.
Would you like me to quote from ancient manuscripts to prove that doing evil things is what makes you evil, not your race or tribe?
Are you so stupid that you replied to my remarks without reading them?
Pot, meet kettle... You didn't actually reply to what I wrote, you simply attacked me...
Because you claimed that my assertion: that evil is an action (i.e 'sin' to give an older name) is somehow relativism, whereas your claim is that: the following is okay: murdering, raping, blowing the arms off kids, electric shocks through the scrotum, claiming that a village is a military base at the UN and then blowing it up, even though it's a village, bearing false witness about the presence of WMD manufacturing facilities in another country. Killing 1 million people. These things are OK, in your mind, because of the team that did them.
THAT'S relativism! You claim that younger people today don't understand evil and don't know what evil is. How utterly ironic: you should introduce yourself! You applaud murder and genocide. Introduce yourself to these kids, and then they will know the face of evil.
Who are these rough men you are talking about? ISIS?
Try the US military, the UK military, etc...
No thanks. I prefer my marriage go ahead without being blown up, my kids retain their limbs and my scrotum unwired.
Perhaps the author is unfamiliar with metric but it does seem odd to assume that the readers of Slashdot would be unfamiliar with a system of measurement that most of us use every day. Even those of us who don't you would think would have a reasonable grasp of it.
The the leading "authority" on "man made global warming" was the IPCC. The IPCC's hockey stick graph was totally discredited as junk science and the data Was completely manipulated to push the Rothchild Agenda [youtube.com]
Stop lying.
It's funny how repeat what CNN, Foxnews, and MSNBC tells you like a good little parrot. Except all of your evidence has been discredited as junk science.
Yes I've been brainwashed by TV channels that aren't available in my country.Sounds plausible. How did they do it? Satellites beaming down special rays? Should I wear a tinfoil hat?
The climate and the geographical structure of the earth has been changing throughout its history,
Ah - so this current climate anomaly (of 1 degree celsius) is caused by natural variation? What changed in the geographical/atmospheric/biosphere that caused this change?
Lying again. Are you hoping against hope we didn't look at the data?
In the 1990's climate deniers told us that the climate wasn't warming.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was because of the sun.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was due to gravitational lensing.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was due to- hey look over there! It's a vast green conspiracy!
They were wrong. Or lying.
Then they told us that there was no warming, sorry, we were wrong before when we said there was warming, but here's a single word in an email we heard about that proves the data was manipulated - no! don't look at the data! no!
They were lying
Then they told us the slight dip in the rate of warming was magically a reset of the warming and that this disproved the laws of thermodynamics and model mumble mumble magic happens! Unicorns and Fairies!
They were wrong or lying.
I tell you this in case you feel like comparing your credibility with the credibility of the science again.
And yet you copy-paste the same strawman of lies and deceptions.
Yep, I've standardised a response to climate denier liespew questioning the reliability of climate science. Suck it up.
The fact is that most of what 'climate science' predicted hasn't come to pass. The models they created are terrible at prediction, and have failed to match reality
You're lying again.
In the 1990's climate deniers told us that the climate wasn't warming.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was because of the sun.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was due to gravitational lensing.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was due to- hey look over there! It's a vast green conspiracy!
They were wrong.
Then they told us the slight dip in the rate of warming was magically a reset of the warming and that this disproved the laws of thermodynamics and model mumble mumble magic happens! Unicorns and Fairies!
They were wrong.
I tell you this in case you feel like comparing your credibility with the credibility of the science again.
He said that snowfall would become a rare event in East Anglia (are you in East Anglia?), and you seem, somehow, to have interpreted him as saying that snowfall would become a rare event by 2015 which sounds like a comprehension problem on your part, not a problem with his prediction.
If you're assuming that we're not part of nature, and that our variations are "unnatural", as opposed to the "natural" changes made by every other animal on the planet, then that's your problem.
So which animal or plant species has caused a 1 degree global temperature variation over a century? Eclectus parrots? Barramundi?
Then they told us the slight dip in the rate of warming was magically a reset of the warming and that this disproved the laws of thermodynamics and model mumble mumble magic happens! Unicorns and Fairies!
You ever heard the story of the boy that cried wolf?
Expect people to doubt you if you're going to make apocalyptic prophecies and they fall through time and time again.
In the 1990's climate deniers told us that the climate wasn't warming.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was because of the sun.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was due to gravitational lensing.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was due to- hey look over there! It's a vast green conspiracy!
They were wrong. Or lying.
Then they told us that there was no warming, sorry, we were wrong before when we said there was warming, but here's a single word in an email we heard about that proves the data was manipulated - no! don't look at the data! no!
They were lying
Then they told us the slight dip in the rate of warming was magically a reset of the warming and that this disproved the laws of thermodynamics and model mumble mumble magic happens! Unicorns and Fairies!
They were wrong or lying.
I tell you this in case you feel like comparing the credibility of the denialists with the credibility of the science again.
In the 1990's climate deniers told us that the climate wasn't warming.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was because of the sun.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was due to gravitational lensing.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was due to- hey look over there! It's a vast green conspiracy!
They were wrong. Or lying.
Then they told us that there was no warming, sorry, we were wrong before when we said there was warming, but here's a single word in an email we heard about that proves the data was manipulated - no! don't look at the data! no!
They were lying
Then they told us the slight dip in the rate of warming was magically a reset of the warming and that this disproved the laws of thermodynamics and model mumble mumble magic happens! Unicorns and Fairies!
They were wrong or lying.
I tell you this in case you feel like comparing your credibility with the credibility of the science again.
Your beliefs make no difference to reality. Are you hoping to fairy wish climate change away? - "timmy you can do it! you just have to believe!"
In the 70's it was going to be an ice age, now it is going to be a heat wave.
In the 1990's climate deniers told us that the climate wasn't warming.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was because of the sun.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was due to gravitational lensing.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was due to- hey look over there! It's a vast green conspiracy!
They were wrong.
Then they told us the slight dip in the rate of warming was magically a reset of the warming and that this disproved the laws of thermodynamics and model mumble mumble magic happens! Unicorns and Fairies!
They were wrong.
I tell you this in case you feel like comparing your credibility with the credibility of the science again.
Is the data real or manipulated?
I once had a guy here claim that the measured rate of warming was insignificant and posted a link to woodfortrees to prove it. I went and looked. It turns out, he'd carefully selected a narrow band of measures along the equator (where the warming is the least) and excluded the temperate and polar zones to reduce the warming measures. In short he lied.
I pointed this out to him, and he disappeared. Yet I have seen, several times, the same link re-appear.
In 85 years we'll have flying cars, submersible habitats, colonies on the moon, we'll be terraforming Mars and flying around in spaceships.
Course, all that was supposed to have happened - well, now According to the "experts".
If you consider writers of fiction to be experts. Which might explain why you believe the lies of climate science denialists.
Slashdot Mirror
We can go back to the moon, there is just no reason. Other than beating the soviets, there was no reason to go the first time.
Yes. Of course the same issue applies equally to Mars: apart from quasi-religious, nobody has articulated a reason for us to go. Hopefully the truth of this comparison will sink in before we waste too much money on this monorail venture.
Neither do you, and you're wrong. You saying you're not doesn't make it so.
Would you like me to quote from ancient manuscripts to prove that doing evil things is what makes you evil, not your race or tribe?
Are you so stupid that you replied to my remarks without reading them?
Pot, meet kettle... You didn't actually reply to what I wrote, you simply attacked me...
Because you claimed that my assertion: that evil is an action (i.e 'sin' to give an older name) is somehow relativism, whereas your claim is that: the following is okay: murdering, raping, blowing the arms off kids, electric shocks through the scrotum, claiming that a village is a military base at the UN and then blowing it up, even though it's a village, bearing false witness about the presence of WMD manufacturing facilities in another country. Killing 1 million people. These things are OK, in your mind, because of the team that did them.
THAT'S relativism! You claim that younger people today don't understand evil and don't know what evil is. How utterly ironic: you should introduce yourself! You applaud murder and genocide. Introduce yourself to these kids, and then they will know the face of evil.
Who are these rough men you are talking about? ISIS?
Try the US military, the UK military, etc...
No thanks. I prefer my marriage go ahead without being blown up, my kids retain their limbs and my scrotum unwired.
Perhaps the author is unfamiliar with metric but it does seem odd to assume that the readers of Slashdot would be unfamiliar with a system of measurement that most of us use every day. Even those of us who don't you would think would have a reasonable grasp of it.
1. We know arsenic kills people, it's been experimentally proven repeatedly
2. We saw you give the victim arsenic
3. The victim had arsenic in his system, the same arsenic can be forensically proven to come from the bottle you have in your hand
4. Whilst you were giving him arsenic we were shouting "don't let him drink that! It's arsenic! It will kill him!"
And yet you claim the victim died of natural causes based on the fact that 1000 years ago a man died natural causes.
Of course your argument is treated with derision. How can you possibly expect a different response?
Yes you're right - denialists are swindlers. Thanks for sharing.
The the leading "authority" on "man made global warming" was the IPCC. The IPCC's hockey stick graph was totally discredited as junk science and the data Was completely manipulated to push the Rothchild Agenda [youtube.com]
Stop lying.
It's funny how repeat what CNN, Foxnews, and MSNBC tells you like a good little parrot. Except all of your evidence has been discredited as junk science.
Yes I've been brainwashed by TV channels that aren't available in my country.Sounds plausible. How did they do it? Satellites beaming down special rays? Should I wear a tinfoil hat?
They were right.
Ah, so you are saying that the denialists didn't say those things?
Then they told us the warming was due to- hey look over there! It's a vast green conspiracy!
They were wrong. Or lying. Happy to list any other debunked lies or bizarre, disproven conspiracy theory. Just let me know which ones.
I don't find your argument convincing.
The climate and the geographical structure of the earth has been changing throughout its history,
Ah - so this current climate anomaly (of 1 degree celsius) is caused by natural variation? What changed in the geographical/atmospheric/biosphere that caused this change?
Show working.
They were wrong, or lying.
In the 1990's climate deniers told us that the climate wasn't warming.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was because of the sun.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was due to gravitational lensing.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was due to- hey look over there! It's a vast green conspiracy!
They were wrong. Or lying.
Then they told us that there was no warming, sorry, we were wrong before when we said there was warming, but here's a single word in an email we heard about that proves the data was manipulated - no! don't look at the data! no!
They were lying
Then they told us the slight dip in the rate of warming was magically a reset of the warming and that this disproved the laws of thermodynamics and model mumble mumble magic happens! Unicorns and Fairies!
They were wrong or lying.
I tell you this in case you feel like comparing your credibility with the credibility of the science again.
Lying again.
And yet you copy-paste the same strawman of lies and deceptions.
Yep, I've standardised a response to climate denier liespew questioning the reliability of climate science. Suck it up.
The fact is that most of what 'climate science' predicted hasn't come to pass. The models they created are terrible at prediction, and have failed to match reality
You're lying again.
In the 1990's climate deniers told us that the climate wasn't warming.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was because of the sun.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was due to gravitational lensing.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was due to- hey look over there! It's a vast green conspiracy!
They were wrong.
Then they told us the slight dip in the rate of warming was magically a reset of the warming and that this disproved the laws of thermodynamics and model mumble mumble magic happens! Unicorns and Fairies!
They were wrong.
I tell you this in case you feel like comparing your credibility with the credibility of the science again.
He said that snowfall would become a rare event in East Anglia (are you in East Anglia?), and you seem, somehow, to have interpreted him as saying that snowfall would become a rare event by 2015 which sounds like a comprehension problem on your part, not a problem with his prediction.
There's been 18 years with no warming.
Stop lying. Do you think we don't have the temperature records?
If you're assuming that we're not part of nature, and that our variations are "unnatural", as opposed to the "natural" changes made by every other animal on the planet, then that's your problem.
So which animal or plant species has caused a 1 degree global temperature variation over a century? Eclectus parrots? Barramundi?
But that global mean shows nearly 1 degree of warming over a century...
Then they told us the slight dip in the rate of warming was magically a reset of the warming and that this disproved the laws of thermodynamics and model mumble mumble magic happens! Unicorns and Fairies!
You ever heard the story of the boy that cried wolf? Expect people to doubt you if you're going to make apocalyptic prophecies and they fall through time and time again.
In the 1990's climate deniers told us that the climate wasn't warming.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was because of the sun.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was due to gravitational lensing.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was due to- hey look over there! It's a vast green conspiracy!
They were wrong. Or lying.
Then they told us that there was no warming, sorry, we were wrong before when we said there was warming, but here's a single word in an email we heard about that proves the data was manipulated - no! don't look at the data! no!
They were lying
Then they told us the slight dip in the rate of warming was magically a reset of the warming and that this disproved the laws of thermodynamics and model mumble mumble magic happens! Unicorns and Fairies!
They were wrong or lying.
I tell you this in case you feel like comparing the credibility of the denialists with the credibility of the science again.
Thirdly, go re-read the Climategate emails.
In the 1990's climate deniers told us that the climate wasn't warming.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was because of the sun.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was due to gravitational lensing.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was due to- hey look over there! It's a vast green conspiracy!
They were wrong. Or lying.
Then they told us that there was no warming, sorry, we were wrong before when we said there was warming, but here's a single word in an email we heard about that proves the data was manipulated - no! don't look at the data! no!
They were lying
Then they told us the slight dip in the rate of warming was magically a reset of the warming and that this disproved the laws of thermodynamics and model mumble mumble magic happens! Unicorns and Fairies!
They were wrong or lying.
I tell you this in case you feel like comparing your credibility with the credibility of the science again.
I don't believe you.
Your beliefs make no difference to reality. Are you hoping to fairy wish climate change away? - "timmy you can do it! you just have to believe!"
In the 70's it was going to be an ice age, now it is going to be a heat wave.
In the 1990's climate deniers told us that the climate wasn't warming.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was because of the sun.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was due to gravitational lensing.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was due to- hey look over there! It's a vast green conspiracy!
They were wrong.
Then they told us the slight dip in the rate of warming was magically a reset of the warming and that this disproved the laws of thermodynamics and model mumble mumble magic happens! Unicorns and Fairies!
They were wrong.
I tell you this in case you feel like comparing your credibility with the credibility of the science again.
Is the data real or manipulated?
I once had a guy here claim that the measured rate of warming was insignificant and posted a link to woodfortrees to prove it. I went and looked. It turns out, he'd carefully selected a narrow band of measures along the equator (where the warming is the least) and excluded the temperate and polar zones to reduce the warming measures. In short he lied.
I pointed this out to him, and he disappeared. Yet I have seen, several times, the same link re-appear.
So: who is manipulating data?
In 85 years we'll have flying cars, submersible habitats, colonies on the moon, we'll be terraforming Mars and flying around in spaceships. Course, all that was supposed to have happened - well, now According to the "experts".
If you consider writers of fiction to be experts. Which might explain why you believe the lies of climate science denialists.
If you're ignorant of the difference between natural variation and the variation we are creating then that is your problem.