Did you even read the articles and look at the screenshots? They clearly say "Get Firefox with Google Toolbar." You would be distributing Firefox, and getting paid for it.
The warming has been less than the minimum prediction of the IPCC.
False. IPCC predictions have been on the conservative side.
There are other theories, in particular, solar activity. The data doesn't support either theory convincingly.
False. Other hypotheses have been ruled out, including solar activity (the sun has gotten colder the past 30-40 years while the temperature has risen on our planet). All scientific data supports CO2 as the cause.
The other way around? Google started promoting Firefox because they were the default search engine in Firefox, and it was a way to combat IE. Then Firefox started growing thanks to, among other things, being aggressively pushed by Google.
Actually, Google was a heavy promoter of Firefox before Chrome was launched. They would pay you for successful installations if you linked to a special Firefox installer on your web site.
Nice one. Trying to slither your way out of the corner you painted yourself into. Did you notice that the first model is from before a temperature rise was obvious from the observations? In other words, that specific model has held up incredibly well. It is very old, and yet predicted the temperature rise. You also ignored all the other models.
As I said, it is clear that you are not interested in educating yourself. You will keep denying. You didn't even bother to actually read the text explaining what the graphs were showing.
Typical denier.
Let me quote part of the conclusion in that first article:
To conclude, a projection from 1981 for rising temperatures in a major science journal, at a time that the temperature rise was not yet obvious in the observations, has been found to agree well with the observations since then, underestimating the observed trend by about 30%, and easily beating naive predictions of no-change or a linear continuation of trends.
As you can see, this is an example from before temperature rise was obvious in the observations. In other words. They made this before they knew that temperatures would rise. And they underestimated the temperature rise. And since then, models have only gotten better. Remember, this is a model from more than 30 years ago!
Anthony Lupo is a liar and a hack. He is part of the anti-scientific NIPCC, and gets paid by the Heartland Institute to spread propaganda. He is making numerous claims that are demonstrably false. He is parroting denialist lies and talking points like "the vikings colonized Greenland" and "there was a wine industry in England in medieval times," and so on.
Seriously, are you only able to dig out "sources" that are 100% owned and operated by right-wing propaganda organizations that have been repeatedly caught lying on the matter?
I'm not calling 900 plus scientific papers lies. I'm pointing out that the list is not what it claims to be. It consists of fake papers, that is, papers that are not actual scientific papers published in reputable scientific journals. It also consists of papers that do not support the denialist agenda.
You are a denier, not a skeptic. A skeptic would not fall for the BS seen on that page, and would have done a minimum of research instead of mindlessly parroting denialist propaganda.
All peer reviwed research supports AGW. Including that of skeptical scientists like Lindzen, although they tend to ignore their own and other people's research when they get paid to speak on the matter by the oil industry and right-wing think tanks.
No, it is you who are oversimplifying, and even linking to a page which presents papers as something they aren't. For example, it lists a bunch of papers from denialist publication "Energy & Environment" which shows that the list is just a huge lie. The rest of the papers are mostly misrepresentations of their conclusions, as they do not support what that blog says they support.
The fact that you even link to that blog is proof that you are a denier who has no clue what the science actually says, and you blindly parrot that page because you hope it's right. Unfortunately for you, the list is bogus.
And skeptics like Lindzen do have peer reviewed work. The problem is that his research does not support his personal opinions. His research supports AGW, or doesn't address it directly.
Climategate was not an op ed in the WSJ, but a manufactured controversy where fake and out of context quotes from stolen emails were used to deceived people into thinking that scientists were doing bad things.
The op ed you are referring to in the WSJ was littered with errors and lies, and those "prominent scientists" were mostly politicians trying to make a buck.
And Fritz Vahrenholt is not and never was a scientist. He is a politician, and has made a living selling his services to the energy industry. His claims are blatant lies.
There is consensus, and a liar like Vahrenholt will not change that.
these conclusions drawn from mathematical models based upon extrapolations of physical data
Oh dear. Your ignorance is on display again. You really do think this is all they have, don't you?
We need to consider the bigger picture, and that includes looking outside our own perspective and humbly recognizing our limitations. Science and arrogance do not mix.
I'm sorry, but you are the one ignoring the bigger picture, and instead doing cherry-picking and arrogantly declaring that the science is false because you don't understand it.
We may think we know, but without a time machine, we can't really know for certain.
Yes, we can. There are numerous ways to look at the climate in the past.
And yes, one can indeed do exepriments in climate research. That you think one can't just shows your ignorance.
And you don't prove anything in science. You deal with evidence, not proof.
You keep making all these weird claims and comments, and it seems that it's all based on your amazing lack of knowledge. You seem to be clueless about the scientific process in general, and also climate science in particular.
Climate science does not claim that correlation equals causation, for example. So this just proves that you are clueless.
Why do you assume that scientist that disagree must necessarily be in a different field?
Because actual scientists in a field are doing actual research on the topic, and they have been through all the debates and reviews and all that.
Of course, that still doesn't mean that some scientists in a field can't be dishonest scumbags who consciously spread falsehoods about their field because of their political or religious beliefs. There are biologists who deny Evolution, for example.
Here is a list of scientists that are skeptics AND possessing the required pedigrees
Case in point. Notice how you are referring to things like speeches and blog posts rather than actual scientific papers?
And as I pointed out above, there are always some scientists within a field who sadly let their ideology cloud their minds. However, what matters is what they can show through their research.
Akasofu, for example, makes claims that are demonstrably false, and he is basing them on misinformation.
Yes, I did some googling, and it turns out that CAGW is another denialist invention. It seems to be an attempt at setting up straw man because denialists are unable to argue against the actual scientific theory, AGW.
Wow, that is a lot of text. Sadly for you I'm not going to read all that. From what I can tell you are just parroting old denialist canards. The fact is that it's still warming, CO2 is still increasing, and the science is getting more and more complete with every passing day.
No, bullshit is bullshit. I don't know which scientists are calling for deniers to be treated for a mental disorder, but that's yet another example of a denialist canard. You keep making stuff up and changing the subject.
He isn't being modded down because people disagree, but because he's using a straw man argument and misrepresenting the science (as covered by other replies).
This is not about disagreement, but about the fact that he misrepresented the science to create a straw man argument in order to ridicule people who accept scientific facts.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you even read the articles and look at the screenshots? They clearly say "Get Firefox with Google Toolbar." You would be distributing Firefox, and getting paid for it.
False. IPCC predictions have been on the conservative side.
False. Other hypotheses have been ruled out, including solar activity (the sun has gotten colder the past 30-40 years while the temperature has risen on our planet). All scientific data supports CO2 as the cause.
You don't have to. Others will.
The other way around? Google started promoting Firefox because they were the default search engine in Firefox, and it was a way to combat IE. Then Firefox started growing thanks to, among other things, being aggressively pushed by Google.
For the $1 thing, I found this with a quick Google search. And from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
Actually, Google was a heavy promoter of Firefox before Chrome was launched. They would pay you for successful installations if you linked to a special Firefox installer on your web site.
I thought Dotzler was doing QA?
Nice one. Trying to slither your way out of the corner you painted yourself into. Did you notice that the first model is from before a temperature rise was obvious from the observations? In other words, that specific model has held up incredibly well. It is very old, and yet predicted the temperature rise. You also ignored all the other models.
Typical denialist.
As I said, it is clear that you are not interested in educating yourself. You will keep denying. You didn't even bother to actually read the text explaining what the graphs were showing.
Typical denier.
Let me quote part of the conclusion in that first article:
As you can see, this is an example from before temperature rise was obvious in the observations. In other words. They made this before they knew that temperatures would rise. And they underestimated the temperature rise. And since then, models have only gotten better. Remember, this is a model from more than 30 years ago!
Denialists will keep denying, though...
Anthony Lupo is a liar and a hack. He is part of the anti-scientific NIPCC, and gets paid by the Heartland Institute to spread propaganda. He is making numerous claims that are demonstrably false. He is parroting denialist lies and talking points like "the vikings colonized Greenland" and "there was a wine industry in England in medieval times," and so on.
Seriously, are you only able to dig out "sources" that are 100% owned and operated by right-wing propaganda organizations that have been repeatedly caught lying on the matter?
I'm not calling 900 plus scientific papers lies. I'm pointing out that the list is not what it claims to be. It consists of fake papers, that is, papers that are not actual scientific papers published in reputable scientific journals. It also consists of papers that do not support the denialist agenda.
You are a denier, not a skeptic. A skeptic would not fall for the BS seen on that page, and would have done a minimum of research instead of mindlessly parroting denialist propaganda.
All peer reviwed research supports AGW. Including that of skeptical scientists like Lindzen, although they tend to ignore their own and other people's research when they get paid to speak on the matter by the oil industry and right-wing think tanks.
No, it is you who are oversimplifying, and even linking to a page which presents papers as something they aren't. For example, it lists a bunch of papers from denialist publication "Energy & Environment" which shows that the list is just a huge lie. The rest of the papers are mostly misrepresentations of their conclusions, as they do not support what that blog says they support.
The fact that you even link to that blog is proof that you are a denier who has no clue what the science actually says, and you blindly parrot that page because you hope it's right. Unfortunately for you, the list is bogus.
And skeptics like Lindzen do have peer reviewed work. The problem is that his research does not support his personal opinions. His research supports AGW, or doesn't address it directly.
Oh, there are plenty of examples, such as these, but it is clear that you are not interested in educating yourself. You will keep denying.
Climategate was not an op ed in the WSJ, but a manufactured controversy where fake and out of context quotes from stolen emails were used to deceived people into thinking that scientists were doing bad things.
The op ed you are referring to in the WSJ was littered with errors and lies, and those "prominent scientists" were mostly politicians trying to make a buck.
And Fritz Vahrenholt is not and never was a scientist. He is a politician, and has made a living selling his services to the energy industry. His claims are blatant lies.
There is consensus, and a liar like Vahrenholt will not change that.
Perhaps you should educate yourself instead of insisting on spreading false claims.
Oh dear. Your ignorance is on display again. You really do think this is all they have, don't you?
I'm sorry, but you are the one ignoring the bigger picture, and instead doing cherry-picking and arrogantly declaring that the science is false because you don't understand it.
Yes, we can. There are numerous ways to look at the climate in the past.
And yes, one can indeed do exepriments in climate research. That you think one can't just shows your ignorance.
And you don't prove anything in science. You deal with evidence, not proof.
You keep making all these weird claims and comments, and it seems that it's all based on your amazing lack of knowledge. You seem to be clueless about the scientific process in general, and also climate science in particular.
Climate science does not claim that correlation equals causation, for example. So this just proves that you are clueless.
Because actual scientists in a field are doing actual research on the topic, and they have been through all the debates and reviews and all that.
Of course, that still doesn't mean that some scientists in a field can't be dishonest scumbags who consciously spread falsehoods about their field because of their political or religious beliefs. There are biologists who deny Evolution, for example.
Case in point. Notice how you are referring to things like speeches and blog posts rather than actual scientific papers?
And as I pointed out above, there are always some scientists within a field who sadly let their ideology cloud their minds. However, what matters is what they can show through their research.
Akasofu, for example, makes claims that are demonstrably false, and he is basing them on misinformation.
Yes, I did some googling, and it turns out that CAGW is another denialist invention. It seems to be an attempt at setting up straw man because denialists are unable to argue against the actual scientific theory, AGW.
Wow, that is a lot of text. Sadly for you I'm not going to read all that. From what I can tell you are just parroting old denialist canards. The fact is that it's still warming, CO2 is still increasing, and the science is getting more and more complete with every passing day.
Please educate yourself.
I never claimed that it was. Buses rarely drive around with just one person. Their purpose is to move lots of people around.
No, bullshit is bullshit. I don't know which scientists are calling for deniers to be treated for a mental disorder, but that's yet another example of a denialist canard. You keep making stuff up and changing the subject.
He isn't being modded down because people disagree, but because he's using a straw man argument and misrepresenting the science (as covered by other replies).
Challenging AGW with bullshit and straw man arguments should indeed be modded down.
This is not about disagreement, but about the fact that he misrepresented the science to create a straw man argument in order to ridicule people who accept scientific facts.
Ignorance is thinking that the outcomes are mutually exclusive. Please educate yourself.