The IPCC doesn't "put out" data. The IPCC merely refers to existing research. And you don't trust them because your political ideology compels you to ignore the facts.
If everyone is so convinced that these deniers are not rational, why is nothing happening?
A lot is happening, but not enough. And everyone is not convinced that deniers are not rational. After all, the denialist propaganda machinery/industry is rich and powerful, and manages to fool people by actively spreading lies.
The denialist industry is fooling the public. This is a problem. And this is why denialists are dangerous.
Exactly what many of us have been saying, how is it rational to believe in a conclusion based on data they will not let you see?
What are you talking about? The data is right there. You may be ignorant of it, but that's a common problem with creationists.
Why didn't you address any of the responses you got, by the way? Are you just closing your eyes and aiming to continue posting the same lies over again next time even though people have exposed them already?
In the end scientific fact will win through, and we'll figure out how much of the warming trend is indeed caused by humans.
We already know. Denying it won't make it go away. Nice try, though.
One side insists that the facts need backing data to prove them correct, and the other side took a poll and claimed a consensus.
What on earth are you talking about? Scientific consensus is not about polls. It's about the collective results of scientific research. In other words, AGW has the actual facts and research behind it. Consensus has been reached because thousands of scientists around the world have come to the same conclusions based on their own research.
The "facts need backing data to prove them correct" nonsense is a typical creationist argument. "You can't prove it!"
Like a creationist, the reason you are using this argument is that you are either ignorant or dishonest. There are massive amounts of data supporting AGW.
I would also like to point out, the last couple of meetings I find it curious they need to spend as others have pointed out, almost 10's of millions on security to hold a climate conference?
Because a lot of very prominent people are attending, and they wouldn't want an "incident"?
Also, why do you have to spend 1 billion in security at the G20 if you are "good people" trying to do the world good.
Are you fucking kidding me? Did you not pay attention to what fucking happened?
Look, not everyone is as up to date on the latest technology or scamming methods. I think it's quite silly to demand everyone to be as tech savvy as yourself. "But they shouldn't be scammed anyway," you might retort, to which I respond that it's human nature. People just don't have the capacity to think thoroughly about everything and inform themselves fully about every single thing they do.
The earth has been both hotter and cooler than it is now.
Denialist talking point alert!
So obviously if the earth is getting hotter, man must have incurred Earth's wraith and we shall be DOOMED TO ETERNAL FIRE AND STARVATION if we don't make amends IMMEDIATELY!
No, it's not that we "must have", it's that the facts show that we do.
I'm all for taking better care of the planet, but the global warming nuts haven't really provided much evidence and they're the ones making the allegations.
Actually, there is a huge amount of evidence. You are clearly just either ignorant or dishonest about it.
Ummm you do realize that if part of the claim of "climate-gate" is that peer reviewed journals, or the reviewers of said journals, were discriminating against contradictory papers then stating that no contradictory papers have been published in those journals isn't exactly proof that there was no conspiracy?
The only problem is, of course, that skeptical scientists like Richard Lindzen are actively getting their research published. Now, he has failed to show that AGW is wrong, but not for lack of trying. So your insane conspiracy theory is just that. Batshit insane.
And BTW the peer review process in general isn't all it's cracked up to be either.
Even if the MWP was slightly less warm than the present, that still does not prove that temperatures of the late 20th/early 21st century are unprecedented and predicated on human industry as AGW implies.
No, that's what all the mountains of evidence show. You don't need MWP to show that AGW is correct.
Translated: "I can't come up with any excuses for the fact that skeptical scientists like Lindzen are actively publishing, so I'll just ignore what you said and continue to masturbate my delusions."
God, you denialists are so fucking stupid. How fucking hard is it to get the concept of "too much is bad"?
If CO2 is so fucking harmless, why don't you walk into a room with nothing but CO2 and sit around for a few minutes? Let's see how great it works out for you.
Then they went free (as on $0) on the desktop and brought in the revenue by licensing to mobile phones, consoles, etc.
No, the reason why they went free on the desktop in the first place is that they found an alternative revenue source: Forwarding searches to Google (and other search engines). More than 1/3 of Opera's revenue is from forwarding searches.
But these days, WebKit is used by (or will be used by) pretty much everyone except Microsoft (who are on the verge of irrelevance).
Huh? Opera is used by the likes of HTC, Sony, Nintendo, Samsung, AT&T, Verizon, Vodafone... and the list continues until eternity. Every other day they are announcing yet another major deal.
Who is going to pay for Opera when they can use WebKit or Fennec for free?
They are not free to manufacturers. Making a browser costs money. A lot of money. And it takes a long time and is extremely difficult. Just ask Nokia. They spent many years and billions of dollars, and their WebKit browser still ended up sucking. Just because the engine is free doesn't mean that you can just slap it onto a device and call it a browser.
And you can use Opera for free. All Opera products are completely free of charge for consumers.
They don't have the google ad revenue that Mozilla has.
Yes they do.
It doesn't matter how good their browser is, their business model is dead and their days are numbered.
You are obviously clueless about Opera's business model, so why do you make claims about it in the first place?
Opera's days have been numbered for more than a decade according to people like you. And yet they are thriving. Funny thing, that.
Opera brags about this, but my experience is that it's generally quirky in comparison to other browsers (not IE) with valid (X)HTML/CSS.
Not more quirky than other browsers.
All browsers have bugs. You are just being overly critical about bugs in Opera because you design for other browsers first and unconsciously ignore the bugs there because you are used to them.
Slashdot Mirror
Denial, denial, denial. First you misrepresent it, and now you try to come up with pathetic excuses for your ignorance.
The IPCC doesn't "put out" data. The IPCC merely refers to existing research. And you don't trust them because your political ideology compels you to ignore the facts.
You are confusing skepticism and denialism.
Denialist fail. Also notice how you completely fail to even acknowledge that you have allowed yourself to be educated. Not even a single response?
Why do they play an undemocratic role? If they got enough votes to make an impact, that is surely not undemocratic?
A lot is happening, but not enough. And everyone is not convinced that deniers are not rational. After all, the denialist propaganda machinery/industry is rich and powerful, and manages to fool people by actively spreading lies.
The denialist industry is fooling the public. This is a problem. And this is why denialists are dangerous.
What are you talking about? The data is right there. You may be ignorant of it, but that's a common problem with creationists.
Why didn't you address any of the responses you got, by the way? Are you just closing your eyes and aiming to continue posting the same lies over again next time even though people have exposed them already?
We already know. Denying it won't make it go away. Nice try, though.
But in this case, we are talking about an overwhelming majority of actual experts in a field.
So, come up with the data then. Oh, you can't? And yet you insist that all the experts are wrong...
The evidence overwhelmingly shows AGW. You can choose to ignore the evidence, of course. Creationists usually do that, too.
What on earth are you talking about? Scientific consensus is not about polls. It's about the collective results of scientific research. In other words, AGW has the actual facts and research behind it. Consensus has been reached because thousands of scientists around the world have come to the same conclusions based on their own research.
The "facts need backing data to prove them correct" nonsense is a typical creationist argument. "You can't prove it!"
Like a creationist, the reason you are using this argument is that you are either ignorant or dishonest. There are massive amounts of data supporting AGW.
Because a lot of very prominent people are attending, and they wouldn't want an "incident"?
Are you fucking kidding me? Did you not pay attention to what fucking happened?
In other words: You reject the science because of your political ideology. Good job.
Is that so? Who predicted that, exactly? Sources, please.
Look, not everyone is as up to date on the latest technology or scamming methods. I think it's quite silly to demand everyone to be as tech savvy as yourself. "But they shouldn't be scammed anyway," you might retort, to which I respond that it's human nature. People just don't have the capacity to think thoroughly about everything and inform themselves fully about every single thing they do.
Denialist talking point alert!
No, it's not that we "must have", it's that the facts show that we do.
Actually, there is a huge amount of evidence. You are clearly just either ignorant or dishonest about it.
The only problem is, of course, that skeptical scientists like Richard Lindzen are actively getting their research published. Now, he has failed to show that AGW is wrong, but not for lack of trying. So your insane conspiracy theory is just that. Batshit insane.
You wouldn't know, due to your ignorance and all.
No, that's what all the mountains of evidence show. You don't need MWP to show that AGW is correct.
Translated: "I can't come up with any excuses for the fact that skeptical scientists like Lindzen are actively publishing, so I'll just ignore what you said and continue to masturbate my delusions."
If CO2 is so fucking harmless, why don't you walk into a room with nothing but CO2 and sit around for a few minutes? Let's see how great it works out for you.
What are you talking about?
No, the reason why they went free on the desktop in the first place is that they found an alternative revenue source: Forwarding searches to Google (and other search engines). More than 1/3 of Opera's revenue is from forwarding searches.
Huh? Opera is used by the likes of HTC, Sony, Nintendo, Samsung, AT&T, Verizon, Vodafone... and the list continues until eternity. Every other day they are announcing yet another major deal.
They are not free to manufacturers. Making a browser costs money. A lot of money. And it takes a long time and is extremely difficult. Just ask Nokia. They spent many years and billions of dollars, and their WebKit browser still ended up sucking. Just because the engine is free doesn't mean that you can just slap it onto a device and call it a browser. And you can use Opera for free. All Opera products are completely free of charge for consumers.
Yes they do.
You are obviously clueless about Opera's business model, so why do you make claims about it in the first place?
Opera's days have been numbered for more than a decade according to people like you. And yet they are thriving. Funny thing, that.
There are actually more than 60 million Opera Mini users alone.
That's Opera Mini. Opera Mobile has the option to do so, but it's disabled by default.
Opera's market share is about 3% worldwide, and 5-10% in Europe.
Opera has more than 120 million users. Your xenophobia is noted, though.
Not more quirky than other browsers.
All browsers have bugs. You are just being overly critical about bugs in Opera because you design for other browsers first and unconsciously ignore the bugs there because you are used to them.