Firstly, if someone has legitimate scientific criticisms there is peer review for a reason; random speculation on a blog is worth little, particularly considering it's quote-mining from an unspecified "leaked" source without context (the blog is clearly trying to make a mountain out of a molehill).
That comment you link to is nonsensical, it claims there wasn't a "I do know: This paper has nothing to say about AGW." option, and yet there was, the neutral option. This is just pedantry to try and pick holes into something ideologically unpleasant. The majority of climatologists don't agree with denialists; get over it.
And where did you learn about these purported predictions? Generally denialists seem to base their opinions of scientists from the newspapers, the same newspapers with a history of picking minority opinions and aggrandizing them to "Scientists think that..." type messages. Now, show evidence of a dire prediction published in a peer reviewed journal that has not come to fruition; put up or shut up.
So what if journalists don't talk about other sources than CO2, they have been factored in by the actual scientists, and that's what matters. Whether or not they have good PR is besides the point.
Are you suggesting that people didn't know not to do things to people that they wouldn't like other people to do to them until some guy pointed it out?
There was condemnation from the pulpit. The Catholic church in Northern Ireland was traditionally anti-republican. Republicans in Northern Ireland may have been mostly (but certainly not exclusively) Catholic, but it doesn't mean they did what they did because of that.
Slashdot Mirror
Naturally I assume you of course call android by the name Linux as well.
Firstly, if someone has legitimate scientific criticisms there is peer review for a reason; random speculation on a blog is worth little, particularly considering it's quote-mining from an unspecified "leaked" source without context (the blog is clearly trying to make a mountain out of a molehill).
Climatology is not solely about global warming, so that is whether the neutral option comes in.
There's a "don't know" option as well. Of those people that ventured a discernible opinion 97% agree that global warming is man made.
That comment you link to is nonsensical, it claims there wasn't a "I do know: This paper has nothing to say about AGW." option, and yet there was, the neutral option. This is just pedantry to try and pick holes into something ideologically unpleasant. The majority of climatologists don't agree with denialists; get over it.
And where did you learn about these purported predictions? Generally denialists seem to base their opinions of scientists from the newspapers, the same newspapers with a history of picking minority opinions and aggrandizing them to "Scientists think that ..." type messages. Now, show evidence of a dire prediction published in a peer reviewed journal that has not come to fruition; put up or shut up.
at some point 97% of climatologists didn't believe in global warming, and now they do. Did you see what I did there.
Everyone knows white pudding is where it's at
So what if journalists don't talk about other sources than CO2, they have been factored in by the actual scientists, and that's what matters. Whether or not they have good PR is besides the point.
"In my eyes ...". Science isn't subjective, the opinion of your eyes is worth nothing.
Only 4 times as likely to be murdered and that is somehow hailed as a good thing.
You are 80 times more likely to be murdered with a firearm in the USA than the UK.
Oh I see, your little anecdote defeats scientific studies. Is that how it works?
If robbers know people have guns, they will bring guns. They'll have less compunction about shooting you. Guns don't protect people: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2013/mar/25/guns-protection-national-rifle-association
Renewable energies of this sort also require expensive energy storage like pumped storage hydroelectricity
Sorry, but why would I be counting someone having a heart attack? Are you seriously contending that radiation causes heart attacks?
Despite your post, noone has died at Fukushima from radiation. Compare that to coal.
Are you suggesting that people didn't know not to do things to people that they wouldn't like other people to do to them until some guy pointed it out?
Look at the links before commenting. The patents in the US also include multiple continuations. That is why several have the exact same titles.
Actually, Microsoft sued them (so that the Judge would declare a royalty fee, rather than through negotiation) over the patents that Motorola holds.
As far as I'm aware licensing agreements aren't an admission that the patents are valid in any way.
What is new in this? I think I've heard most of this before (except the eating dogs part).
No.
84% of Egyptians support killing people who no longer wish to be a Muslim. How many Christians do you think would support the killing of those who no longer wish to be Christian? http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2010/12/Pew-Global-Attitudes-Muslim-Report-FINAL-December-2-2010.pdf
There was condemnation from the pulpit. The Catholic church in Northern Ireland was traditionally anti-republican. Republicans in Northern Ireland may have been mostly (but certainly not exclusively) Catholic, but it doesn't mean they did what they did because of that.