There will always be climate change, but right now it's changing extraordinarily rapidly due to human emissions, which means that it's changing faster than we can adapt.
Then you complain about the way scientists phrase things. You are obviously only used to reading political demagoguery where absolute certainty is always present. Science isn't like that. So I can understand why you think science sounds all weird and honest and all.
The UN requires scrutiny, but the IPCC is backed by every single respected scientific institution on the planet.
Take your FUD to your political forums instead of spewing your political propaganda here, please.
The climate of our planet is pretty complicated, and I know I don't understand or all the variables involved.
Wow, an argument from ignorance. That's... novel.
My other issue with climate study is that it's used as a political weapon.
So what? That doesn't make the facts any less factual.
Politicians wield the results to push their own agendas. With this, it seems like results from studies could be skewed.
No, politicians do decide on the results of the actual research. You are extremely confused, it seems. The science is right there, in actual scientific journals.
I am not very tolerant of bullshit, and you are spreading bullshit. Your link is about Anthony Watts once again misrepresenting scientific research, and that makes me even less tolerant of you.
Of course you had to mention the "hide the decline" lie. You think it means something it doesn't. Just like the research you think supports your superstition because Watts said so.
We've seen the things blamed on "Climate Change" shift from hotter temperatures, to *cooler temperatures* (as things cooled or didn't warm very much the last decade) to animals doing weird stuff we don't think they would normally do, etc., etc.
You are getting it all wrong.
It's getting hotter globally. The last decade was the warmest on record.
However, there are local variations.
It seems that you are merely a victim of your own ignorance and inability to educate yourself on the matter.
Next, weather disasters -- which have been a constant on this planet forever will now be blamed on climate change.
Nope. You are getting it wrong again. Why is it that you can't be bothered to educate yourself before commenting on this?
The good part is that people are really wising up to this stuff. The bad part is the alarmists are still getting money.
The sad part is that you are either extremely ignorant or extremely dishonest, because just about everything you just wrote is complete and utter nonsense.
Climate 'science' seems to be about the same science level as intelligent design IMHO.
On the contrary, it is the denialist who is like a creationist. The person who accepts the scientific consensus (AGW) is like the person who accepts Evolution.
There are plenty of skeptics of AGW that have doctorates and other sorts of science qualifications.
I'm sorry, but who cares? It doesn't matter if you are Einstein himself if you deny simple and basic scientific facts, such as the observed warming and the human impact.
Being a scientist in one field does not make you an expert in another.
you would like to preserve the illusion that all scientists "believe in" CAGW (a horrible misappropriation of religious terminology that is alas foundational to "the cause" propounded by such as Hansen, Jones, and Mann)
What is "CAGW"? The actual scientific theory is called AGW. So it would appear that you are the one messing up the terminology.
The rest of your comment is basically a bunch of denialist nonsense.
He's posting it over and over again because people are posting the stupid and fallacious argument that "Nokia would have to competed against other Android manufacturers", which they will have to do whether they use Android or not!
Microsoft's astroturfing campaign is clearly getting to him, and I don't blame him.
How would not using Android save Nokia? They are still competing against Android, and there is massive demand for Android phones (and hardly any for Windows phones). You are not really making sense. Not using Android gives them a competitive disadvantage because they are using an OS no one wants to buy.
Blaming the sales people is just crazy. Just face it: Windows Phone is not a desirable platform for most consumers. Trying to talk people into buying it when they don't want it is futile.
No, market share for Windows Phone 7 isn't that great, but it's obviously growing at a rapid rate
Really? Last I heard sales were down from the last quarter in 2011 compared to 2010. And sales in the Finnish market (Nokia's home!) hardly represent the global picture.
What the world most certainly doesn't need is yet another Android phone manufacturer.
Why? That's like saying we don't need another phone manufacturer. There are lots of them already, so Nokia might as well shut down!
Slashdot Mirror
You don't know the difference between a religious book and scientific literature? No wonder you are a denier...
There will always be climate change, but right now it's changing extraordinarily rapidly due to human emissions, which means that it's changing faster than we can adapt.
Then you complain about the way scientists phrase things. You are obviously only used to reading political demagoguery where absolute certainty is always present. Science isn't like that. So I can understand why you think science sounds all weird and honest and all.
The UN requires scrutiny, but the IPCC is backed by every single respected scientific institution on the planet.
Take your FUD to your political forums instead of spewing your political propaganda here, please.
Wow, an argument from ignorance. That's... novel.
So what? That doesn't make the facts any less factual.
No, politicians do decide on the results of the actual research. You are extremely confused, it seems. The science is right there, in actual scientific journals.
I am not very tolerant of bullshit, and you are spreading bullshit. Your link is about Anthony Watts once again misrepresenting scientific research, and that makes me even less tolerant of you.
Of course you had to mention the "hide the decline" lie. You think it means something it doesn't. Just like the research you think supports your superstition because Watts said so.
The models have actually been right. I have no idea why "conservatives" always insist on lying about the science.
You are getting it all wrong.
It's getting hotter globally. The last decade was the warmest on record.
However, there are local variations.
It seems that you are merely a victim of your own ignorance and inability to educate yourself on the matter.
Nope. You are getting it wrong again. Why is it that you can't be bothered to educate yourself before commenting on this?
The sad part is that you are either extremely ignorant or extremely dishonest, because just about everything you just wrote is complete and utter nonsense.
On the contrary, it is the denialist who is like a creationist. The person who accepts the scientific consensus (AGW) is like the person who accepts Evolution.
He seems to be talking about humans having "infested" the planet and needing to be exterminated.
Yes it is. It has far lower emissions per person than a regular car. One train or bus can replace countless cars.
AGW is indeed falsifiable. Either you are dishonest and pretending that it isn't, or you are ignorant and don't know how.
Another lie. Or lack of knowledge.
This is a lie. I have no idea why you have decided to lie like that, but there you are. That, or you are just ignorant.
I'm sorry, but who cares? It doesn't matter if you are Einstein himself if you deny simple and basic scientific facts, such as the observed warming and the human impact.
Being a scientist in one field does not make you an expert in another.
What is "CAGW"? The actual scientific theory is called AGW. So it would appear that you are the one messing up the terminology.
The rest of your comment is basically a bunch of denialist nonsense.
What kind of alarmism are you referring to, specifically? Got an example?
The problem with Windows Phone is that it doesn't seem to be selling even when it is available (except in Nokia's home country)
Why? There is actual demand for Android phones, unlike Windows phones. They would be selling phones!
He's posting it over and over again because people are posting the stupid and fallacious argument that "Nokia would have to competed against other Android manufacturers", which they will have to do whether they use Android or not!
Microsoft's astroturfing campaign is clearly getting to him, and I don't blame him.
You may want Windows, but clearly most people don't.
How would not using Android save Nokia? They are still competing against Android, and there is massive demand for Android phones (and hardly any for Windows phones). You are not really making sense. Not using Android gives them a competitive disadvantage because they are using an OS no one wants to buy.
Android is doomed to low-income markets? Doesn't look like that to me. In fact, it looks like it's generally kicking ass all over the place.
So basically, Windows Phone is finally outselling a dead and outdated OS?
And what makes you think Windows Phone runs better on low end phones? I thought Microsoft had minimum system requirements.
Blaming the sales people is just crazy. Just face it: Windows Phone is not a desirable platform for most consumers. Trying to talk people into buying it when they don't want it is futile.
Really? Last I heard sales were down from the last quarter in 2011 compared to 2010. And sales in the Finnish market (Nokia's home!) hardly represent the global picture.
Why? That's like saying we don't need another phone manufacturer. There are lots of them already, so Nokia might as well shut down!
So you are saying that Nokia wouldn't be able to make competitive hardware? Is that it? Then how are they going to get anywhere with Windows Phone?
How so? If WP becomes a success everyone else will be using it too, and Nokia will be just another manufacturer in a saturated market.
There are times, yes. Every now and then, yes. Not all the time.