AGW people will likely never be able to understand that CO2 has a vanishingly small effect on the climate, water vapor has a gigantic effect on weather patterns
Deniers will keep lying, and will never understand that there's a difference between climate and weather...
Unfortunately, human beings allow ideas to become cults, and they gravitate toward one side or the other rather than taking a rational view based on evidence, rather than refusing to take part in the false dichotomy set up by others.
Actually, there's a false middle ground here. You think there must be a middle ground between science (AGW) and science denial (AGW denial). I say BS.
Science should not need bastions, but science is under politically motivated attacks. These politically motivated attacks have bastions, and those bastions are being destroyed by scientific facts.
Climategate was no scandal. It was a manufactured controversy based on quote-mining (like creationists do).
The science is settled as far as the question of whether the warming is man-made or not. Just like the Theory of Evolution is settled (it's real). There are lots of little details that aren't settled, but they don't affect the overall theory.
It is not the actual scientists that have involved politics in their research. There are no damning emails from East Anglia. No missing data. No fake graphs. Why are you spreading all these blatant lies?
What sides? The science and the anti-science sides? Do you also doubt that neither the scientists nor the creationists are entirely correct? That you are biologically agnostic?
It is a fallacy to assume that there must be a middle ground between scientific facts and dogmatic claims.
don't think it's right to say they are completely unscientific as long as they are still able to form new potentially useful hypotheses.
They aren't. All their nonsense has been refuted, so now they are basically just regurgitating the same old refuted nonsense over and over again, like creationists do.
So they should hold onto a hypothesis that the evidence has proven incorrect?
That's exactly what they are doing. They are bouncing between their already refuted hypotheses. Once something has been debunked in a discussion, they move on to the next claim, and when that is debunked, they jump back.
Is it more dishonest to disagree with dogma, or to try to silence those who disagree with you? As soon as you try to silence people in science is when you lose science. I like Richard Lindzen's quote:
Who is being silenced? Lindzen is a scumbag who lies in his public speeches, while his own research has failed to support his claims (or in some cases, contradicted his own public position).
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
This is a statement of fact. It is an observed fact that the planet is getting warmer. Even Lindzen agrees!
How about both sides get a grip and look at the evidence.
Both sides? You mean science and anti-science? The problem is that the denialist/anti-science side refuses to look at the evidence, and the science side has already carefully evaluated the published research. The IPCC has done a great job here. So they've already looked at the evidence, and the IPCC has presented that in their awesome reports.
Climate Scientists: stop sounding like sadomasochists and trying to make normative claims
Evolution is STILL a theory. Even Darwin acknowledged this.
Evolution will always remain a theory, because a theory is the highest part of the scientific hierarchy. What a scientist calls a "theory" is what regular people would call "fact". So to us non-scientists, evolution is a fact.
By the way, the Bible foretold THOUSANDS of years ago that the earth was round: Isaiah 40:22
The IPCC -- which, I should point out, after some revelations about its "science" and internal politics now has a credibility of near zero -- is not discussing the cost.
Actually, the IPCC is discussing both the scientific basis and what can be done based on those facts.
And claiming that the IPCC has a credibility of near zero is just insane. Every single respected scientific organization in the entire world supports the IPCC. So you are basically saying that the entire scientific community is part of a major conspiracy to cover up the truth.
What would the cost be of dropping emissions to 0 today?
No one is arguing that emissions should be dropped to 0. Looks like you are rather confused.
AGW skeptics are being called names like "deniers".
Actual honest skeptics aren't called deniers because they aren't denying facts. However, if one is a skeptic and bothers to look into the matter, one quickly realizes that AGW is true. Any true skeptic would follow the facts that point to AGW, so anyone who rejects those facts is, by definition, a denier rather than a skeptic.
So no, it is not an accurate term for the vast majority of AGW skeptics
The vast majority of AGW skeptics accept the facts. People who don't are deniers.
Skeptics who are honest about it aren't called deniers, because they aren't denying facts. Any true skeptic would follow the facts that point to AGW, so anyone who rejects those facts is, by definition, a denier rather than a skeptic.
the measurements are distorted because the once-rural weather stations are now in the middle of expanding cities (heat sinks)
They are not. In fact, measurements outside of cities show the same trends. You are just spewing the Urban Heat Island talking point that's constantly used by denialists to deny scientific fact.
Furtermore even if the globe was warming, there's no proof it was man.
Science deals with evidence, not proof. And there's a huge amount of evidence that the warming is caused by humans. Once again you are just spewing denialist talking points.
You work for Microsoft or Nokia, right? Because otherwise you wouldn't be coming up with excuses for what those Nokia/Microsoft employees were posting.
Example: "it's one of the best phone available, iphone is so dumb compared to this"
The board realized that the strategy of trying to create another incompatible ecosystem and trying to attract developers was doomed to fail from the get go
My first thought when I read this: Why not go with Android instead?
My second thought: Didn't that MeeGo phone outsell the current top Windows Phone model from Nokia, despite not being available all over the world, and despite Nokia doing basically no marketing for it?
Slashdot Mirror
Deniers will keep lying, and will never understand that there's a difference between climate and weather...
Actually, there's a false middle ground here. You think there must be a middle ground between science (AGW) and science denial (AGW denial). I say BS.
Science should not need bastions, but science is under politically motivated attacks. These politically motivated attacks have bastions, and those bastions are being destroyed by scientific facts.
Climategate was no scandal. It was a manufactured controversy based on quote-mining (like creationists do).
But they are not scientists. They are not looking at the facts, but rather desperately clinging to already refuted claims, bouncing between them.
How has the extent been over exaggerated? Examples and sources, please!
The science is settled as far as the question of whether the warming is man-made or not. Just like the Theory of Evolution is settled (it's real). There are lots of little details that aren't settled, but they don't affect the overall theory.
It is not the actual scientists that have involved politics in their research. There are no damning emails from East Anglia. No missing data. No fake graphs. Why are you spreading all these blatant lies?
What sides? The science and the anti-science sides? Do you also doubt that neither the scientists nor the creationists are entirely correct? That you are biologically agnostic?
It is a fallacy to assume that there must be a middle ground between scientific facts and dogmatic claims.
Not if it's based on lies and deception.
They aren't. All their nonsense has been refuted, so now they are basically just regurgitating the same old refuted nonsense over and over again, like creationists do.
That's exactly what they are doing. They are bouncing between their already refuted hypotheses. Once something has been debunked in a discussion, they move on to the next claim, and when that is debunked, they jump back.
Who is being silenced? Lindzen is a scumbag who lies in his public speeches, while his own research has failed to support his claims (or in some cases, contradicted his own public position).
This is a statement of fact. It is an observed fact that the planet is getting warmer. Even Lindzen agrees!
Both sides? You mean science and anti-science? The problem is that the denialist/anti-science side refuses to look at the evidence, and the science side has already carefully evaluated the published research. The IPCC has done a great job here. So they've already looked at the evidence, and the IPCC has presented that in their awesome reports.
What are you talking about?
Evolution will always remain a theory, because a theory is the highest part of the scientific hierarchy. What a scientist calls a "theory" is what regular people would call "fact". So to us non-scientists, evolution is a fact.
That says that the earth is flat. Fail.
Actually, the IPCC is discussing both the scientific basis and what can be done based on those facts.
And claiming that the IPCC has a credibility of near zero is just insane. Every single respected scientific organization in the entire world supports the IPCC. So you are basically saying that the entire scientific community is part of a major conspiracy to cover up the truth.
No one is arguing that emissions should be dropped to 0. Looks like you are rather confused.
I agree, and the group think is what the deniers are guilty of. The ones that actually accept the science are not guilty of group think.
Actual honest skeptics aren't called deniers because they aren't denying facts. However, if one is a skeptic and bothers to look into the matter, one quickly realizes that AGW is true. Any true skeptic would follow the facts that point to AGW, so anyone who rejects those facts is, by definition, a denier rather than a skeptic.
The vast majority of AGW skeptics accept the facts. People who don't are deniers.
Skeptics who are honest about it aren't called deniers, because they aren't denying facts. Any true skeptic would follow the facts that point to AGW, so anyone who rejects those facts is, by definition, a denier rather than a skeptic.
The question is: Why do you reject basic scientific facts?
They are not. In fact, measurements outside of cities show the same trends. You are just spewing the Urban Heat Island talking point that's constantly used by denialists to deny scientific fact.
Science deals with evidence, not proof. And there's a huge amount of evidence that the warming is caused by humans. Once again you are just spewing denialist talking points.
Sounds like your typical IT thing. Especially in software.
It's not just about curiosity. Even thought a discovery might not have practical uses today, it might in the future.
How did Samsung copy Apple?
You work for Microsoft or Nokia, right? Because otherwise you wouldn't be coming up with excuses for what those Nokia/Microsoft employees were posting.
Example: "it's one of the best phone available, iphone is so dumb compared to this"
My first thought when I read this: Why not go with Android instead?
My second thought: Didn't that MeeGo phone outsell the current top Windows Phone model from Nokia, despite not being available all over the world, and despite Nokia doing basically no marketing for it?
But what if Ford was competing in the tire market, and some car manufacturer with a monopoly decided to abuse its monopoly to destroy the tire market?
Isn't everyone using the main profile, though? So what's your point?