Nerds generally find science to be interesting. So science news would be news for nerds. Of course, if you hate science you are not going to enjoy science news. But then you probably aren't much of a nerd (deniers are usually business types and such (or their hardcore supporters)).
Your claim was that "next year is the year they predicted for the Arctic to be ice free."
That article says "could be," not "will be," and is from one team led by Wieslaw Maslowski, which gained his team "a deal of criticism from some of their peers" according to the BBC (example).
The possible scenario from Maslowski was also about summer ice melt.
In other words, you were lying. You were giving the impression that the entire scientific community was saying that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2013 when it was a possible scenario by Maslowski's team alone. You were giving the impression that the Arctic would be totally ice-free, while they were in fact talking about the ice-minimum during summer.
Now, this is typical of you deniers. You will make claims that are either flat out lies, or claims that may seem to be correct if you don't pay attention, but then it turns out that you're twisting words and basically presenting things as something they aren't.
Just as I thought. And this is the reason why you don't want to post sources. You know they are weak and will expose you as a liar.
It doesn't matter whether Lovelock has a better understanding than me. I am not an expert. What matters is that those who do have a good understanding of the subject think Lovelock is a kook, and that he has always been one. He never was an authority on the subject.
What specific predictions were way off, and what is the claim that they were way off based on, specifically?
You did not post a source. You posted an article about a kook who was ranting and raving. Come up with actual citations from the IPCC and actual data, not some random guy who doesn't even know what he's talking about.
Indeed, I have dismissed Lovelock because he is not a climate scientist. And in addition to not being a climate scientist he has a poor understanding of the subject. He was considered a fringe kook even back in the day.
If you really think scientists think it's going to get hotter everywhere on the globe every single day, you are delusional. Short-term fluctuations are expected. Indeed, they are part of the models scientists are using.
You are a typical cherry-picker. You claim to want "research with an open mind," but a mind that keeps distorting reality is not open.
That's a lot of text to make up excuses for not posting any sources. Why are you spending all this time to avoid posting your sources? It is obviously because you have no sources, and are lying through your teeth.
Lovelock is a kook. No one cares what he has to say, and he is not a climate scientist.
Opera is the Mini version and gets around it by offloading the rendering to the cloud
It doesn't get around anything. Opera Mini wasn't created for the iPhone (which "get around it" indicates). It existed before the iPhone, and was ported to it later.
Slashdot Mirror
Nerds generally find science to be interesting. So science news would be news for nerds. Of course, if you hate science you are not going to enjoy science news. But then you probably aren't much of a nerd (deniers are usually business types and such (or their hardcore supporters)).
So what you are saying is that whatever happens, the big banks win?
Once again: Citations. Put up or shut up.
The bottom line is that you lied. You made up claims that turned out to be false.
Why the astroturfing?
Same with a newer Facebook story as well.
Weird. Another brand new Slashdot account getting the first post, praising Facebook...
You really should read that a little closer.
Your claim was that "next year is the year they predicted for the Arctic to be ice free."
That article says "could be," not "will be," and is from one team led by Wieslaw Maslowski, which gained his team "a deal of criticism from some of their peers" according to the BBC (example).
The possible scenario from Maslowski was also about summer ice melt.
In other words, you were lying. You were giving the impression that the entire scientific community was saying that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2013 when it was a possible scenario by Maslowski's team alone. You were giving the impression that the Arctic would be totally ice-free, while they were in fact talking about the ice-minimum during summer.
You might want to take a look at what is actually happening.
Now, this is typical of you deniers. You will make claims that are either flat out lies, or claims that may seem to be correct if you don't pay attention, but then it turns out that you're twisting words and basically presenting things as something they aren't.
Just as I thought. And this is the reason why you don't want to post sources. You know they are weak and will expose you as a liar.
It doesn't matter whether Lovelock has a better understanding than me. I am not an expert. What matters is that those who do have a good understanding of the subject think Lovelock is a kook, and that he has always been one. He never was an authority on the subject.
What specific predictions were way off, and what is the claim that they were way off based on, specifically?
John Wiggenerstrom? Heh. Hello there, astroturfer!
You did not post a source. You posted an article about a kook who was ranting and raving. Come up with actual citations from the IPCC and actual data, not some random guy who doesn't even know what he's talking about.
What does the Holocaust have to do with anything?
Indeed, I have dismissed Lovelock because he is not a climate scientist. And in addition to not being a climate scientist he has a poor understanding of the subject. He was considered a fringe kook even back in the day.
If you really think scientists think it's going to get hotter everywhere on the globe every single day, you are delusional. Short-term fluctuations are expected. Indeed, they are part of the models scientists are using.
You are a typical cherry-picker. You claim to want "research with an open mind," but a mind that keeps distorting reality is not open.
Claiming that you are not attacking science just after attacking science is just silly.
You post your sources and I'll post mine. You have so far failed to post yours, so it is insane of you to demand sources from others.
My rudeness is a result of your lies. If you had not been a liar, I would not have been forced to call you out on it.
One month! You don't even know the difference between climate and weather, do you?
That's a lot of text to make up excuses for not posting any sources. Why are you spending all this time to avoid posting your sources? It is obviously because you have no sources, and are lying through your teeth.
Lovelock is a kook. No one cares what he has to say, and he is not a climate scientist.
You are saying that science is wrong. Feynman is not.
It doesn't get around anything. Opera Mini wasn't created for the iPhone (which "get around it" indicates). It existed before the iPhone, and was ported to it later.
Um. Yes. Hence the name "Anonymous."
The problem is, it should have been getting colder now. Instead it's getting warmer at a much faster rate than previously.
Woosh!
You are attacking science, claiming it doesn't work. You keep claiming that climate science is wrong.