The numbers scientists are publishing don't add up.
Wrong. They do add up.
Their models haven't come true
As a matter of fact, the models have been surprisingly accurate.
A lot of good science is done in home basements and garages and gardens every day of the year and isn't published.
Yes, great scientists like Answers in Genesis and those cool guys, eh!
Critical thinking is about thinking, not being subdued easily by the masses.
Your rejection of scientific fact and active lying because the scientific facts don't match your ideology isn't critical thinking. It's dishonestly and denialism.
Look, you need to stop embarrassing yourself. You are obviously a denialist who will stop at nothing to lie and deceive in order to undermine science and replace it with your religion/ideology. Your comments are like reading standard creationist bullshit: A mix of lies and ignorance. Educate yourself. Stop spewing lies. Thanks.
The supposed "subverting the peer review process" is just an invention by right-wing religious loons. Yes indeed, lying that someone subverted the peer review process, and then repeating that lie in public (complaining about it) is EVIL. Lying about science and scientists to undermine scientific facts that don't match your religion/ideology is EVIL.
I don't find it sad. I find it to be a good thing that scientists refuse to put up with denialist bullshit. When the right-wingers took over the journal, the only right thing to do was to boycott it. Nothing sad about weeding out unscientific bullshit.
Anthropogenic global warming is a very, very new theory. Remember, back in the 70s, the climate scientists were telling us all that we were going to go into a massive ice age at any minute.
You know by now that this is a blatant lie. Are you going to apologize? Or are you going to keep spewing your right-wing lies?
And as a matter of fact, I have seen research on global warming dating back to the late 1800's! Very, very new? You are indeed a fucking retarded asshole.
It was back in the day a irrefutable 'fact' that the earth was flat. You know who came up with that idea? A small fringe 'wacko'. If we allow only what current 'consensus' is then the VERY theories you hold dear would not exist.
Huh? The flat earth thing was a belief held by religious leaders. Actual scientists knew that it wasn't flat, but if they spoke up about it, they were killed. You are comparing religious dogma (flat earth) to scientific consensus (AGW)! That's just retarded.
You may call them wackos and dismiss *ALL* of their ideas just because you *feel* that it is 'right'.
No, their ideas are dismissed because they don't hold water.
Take this as an interesting wacko idea that I recently read here. The canals of mars were not made with water but the very sand that blows around there. Yet you would have asked me last week I would have said water. But now there is another theory on the board.
The comparison is insane. The denialists have no science whatsoever.
Anyone who wishes to actually "learn" and debate the science with actual climate scientists who published in peer reviewed journals I suggest www.wattsupwiththat.com.
I don't. Watts has been repeatedly been caught spreading blatant lies about climate science. The blog is completely unreliable, and full of misinformation.
Your post is a case in point. Someone who disagrees with you is a "fundamentalist wacko" and equivalent to "flatearthers".
No. Someone who disagrees with the facts is.
The problem you fail to recognize is that AGW is not solidly established, hence it is not comparable to theories of gravitation.
Why, yes it is. It is very solidly established indeed. In fact, there's research going back to the late 1800s pointing out global warming.
The roundness of Earth is beyond theory, it is a fact (we have observed the roundness of Earth).
It is an observed fact that the climate is warming. It is an observed fact that CO2 is a driver of warming. It is an observed fact that there's more CO2 in the atmosphere.
Even granting that, reasonable people can disagree on whether humans are a significant contributor to global warming.
Now, it certainly seems plausible that there are models out there with variables and assumptions that result in no warming, or a cooling. What is the likelihood these would get published based purely on their results? Not good.
You are wrong.
1. There are no such models
2. Research that seemingly contradicts the consensus has indeed been published. It happens all the time. It just so happens that all of these published papers have contained serious errors, so they didn't contradict the consensus after all. But they were published when one though they did.
Why don't you pick up a book instead of spouting ignorant nonsense like that? Do you denialists thrive on being willfully ignorant and consciously spreading misinformation?
A car is observed driving down the road. The denialist will deny that the car ever drove down the road even though there is all sorts of evidence, including eye witnesses, photographs, video, audio, and so on. The denialists will claim it's all a conspiracy to trick people into thinking a car drove down the road.
What source? You even failed to use LMGTFY properly.
But the search actually shows the following headline: "Playstation 3 attach rates ties the Wii"
It even links to a Wikipedia article which states: "In early 2008, the NPD Group revealed sales data showing that, while the Wii's life-to-date attach rate is low, in December 2007, it reached 8.11higher than the attach rates for the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 in that month."
1. temperatures have declined for the past decade.
They have not.
2. how many articles the IPCC has referenced that weren't peer reviewed.
Not many at all.
3. how many peer reviewed articles the IPCC ignored because they cast doubt on the "science is settled" mantra.
None. They have even included research which seems to contradict the consensus, but when they looked further into it, it turned out there was no problem after all.
4. how they removed the medieval warm period from the charts because it was as warm or warmer as the '90s.
They didn't. You are just spewing denialist propaganda because of your ignorance on the subject.
I notice a wall of text with no evidence whatsoever. The fact is that you don't know how much I know about these things.
It's ironic that you talk about people following the herd, when you obviously have no original thoughts of your own, but just pick some random position where you swallow any bullshit that's thrown your way.
It is doubtfull nintendo could make the jump from the wii to a system capable of competing eye to eye with the next xbox/ps.
What makes you think Nintendo wants to compete eye to eye? They have clearly decided to go in a different direction, and let the 360 and PS3 swim in the red ocean.
And the fact that most wii owners have very low attach rates for games
Source?
This means that the wii2 would have a lower uptake in the hardcore market
So? Nintendo is going after the expanded audience.
From a hardware/marketing point of view nintendo's new machine will be very interesting
It will be different. Nintendo will not compete. They will simply go for new markets.
Slashdot Mirror
The supposed "subversion of the peer review process" is just an invention by right-wing religious loons.
That's because you are an ignorant denialist who places ideological opinion before scientific fact.
Wrong. They do add up.
As a matter of fact, the models have been surprisingly accurate.
Yes, great scientists like Answers in Genesis and those cool guys, eh!
Your rejection of scientific fact and active lying because the scientific facts don't match your ideology isn't critical thinking. It's dishonestly and denialism.
Look, you need to stop embarrassing yourself. You are obviously a denialist who will stop at nothing to lie and deceive in order to undermine science and replace it with your religion/ideology. Your comments are like reading standard creationist bullshit: A mix of lies and ignorance. Educate yourself. Stop spewing lies. Thanks.
Yes, the intent to reject crappy "research". How terrible!
The supposed "subverting the peer review process" is just an invention by right-wing religious loons. Yes indeed, lying that someone subverted the peer review process, and then repeating that lie in public (complaining about it) is EVIL. Lying about science and scientists to undermine scientific facts that don't match your religion/ideology is EVIL.
I don't find it sad. I find it to be a good thing that scientists refuse to put up with denialist bullshit. When the right-wingers took over the journal, the only right thing to do was to boycott it. Nothing sad about weeding out unscientific bullshit.
You know by now that this is a blatant lie. Are you going to apologize? Or are you going to keep spewing your right-wing lies?
And as a matter of fact, I have seen research on global warming dating back to the late 1800's! Very, very new? You are indeed a fucking retarded asshole.
Nice straw men. Are you right-wing fucktards completely unable to actually understand simple scientific concepts?
Huh? The flat earth thing was a belief held by religious leaders. Actual scientists knew that it wasn't flat, but if they spoke up about it, they were killed. You are comparing religious dogma (flat earth) to scientific consensus (AGW)! That's just retarded.
No, their ideas are dismissed because they don't hold water.
The comparison is insane. The denialists have no science whatsoever.
I don't. Watts has been repeatedly been caught spreading blatant lies about climate science. The blog is completely unreliable, and full of misinformation.
No. Someone who disagrees with the facts is.
Why, yes it is. It is very solidly established indeed. In fact, there's research going back to the late 1800s pointing out global warming.
It is an observed fact that the climate is warming. It is an observed fact that CO2 is a driver of warming. It is an observed fact that there's more CO2 in the atmosphere.
No, they can not.
You are wrong.
1. There are no such models
2. Research that seemingly contradicts the consensus has indeed been published. It happens all the time. It just so happens that all of these published papers have contained serious errors, so they didn't contradict the consensus after all. But they were published when one though they did.
So your anti-science FUD fails.
No, the denier tag is a description of someone who outright denies facts.
No, it is a full-fledged scientific theory.
Why don't you pick up a book instead of spouting ignorant nonsense like that? Do you denialists thrive on being willfully ignorant and consciously spreading misinformation?
A car is observed driving down the road. The denialist will deny that the car ever drove down the road even though there is all sorts of evidence, including eye witnesses, photographs, video, audio, and so on. The denialists will claim it's all a conspiracy to trick people into thinking a car drove down the road.
Hooray! More dishonesty and cherry-picking by Lindzen.
Not at all. Why are you parroting this denialist lie?
How are they acting like liars? Because you are ignorant, you assume they are liars?
Nope. They don't have to be. The scientific process is designed to deal with human error or cheating.
But the search actually shows the following headline: "Playstation 3 attach rates ties the Wii"
It even links to a Wikipedia article which states: "In early 2008, the NPD Group revealed sales data showing that, while the Wii's life-to-date attach rate is low, in December 2007, it reached 8.11higher than the attach rates for the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 in that month."
They have not.
Not many at all.
None. They have even included research which seems to contradict the consensus, but when they looked further into it, it turned out there was no problem after all.
They didn't. You are just spewing denialist propaganda because of your ignorance on the subject.
It's ironic that you talk about people following the herd, when you obviously have no original thoughts of your own, but just pick some random position where you swallow any bullshit that's thrown your way.
The V8 benchmark is useless since it basically cheats. It skips the parts Chrome is slow at. So it just looks like Chrome is faster.
What makes you think Nintendo wants to compete eye to eye? They have clearly decided to go in a different direction, and let the 360 and PS3 swim in the red ocean.
Source?
So? Nintendo is going after the expanded audience.
It will be different. Nintendo will not compete. They will simply go for new markets.
Who cares about what your imaginary friends are doing with their imaginary Wiis? You are just speculating wildly.