So that is why there has been no warming in the last 7+ years
There has indeed been warming in the last "7+" (you mean 10 years, don't you? The old denialist talking-point).
Actually they have documented that it got cooler.
No, it got warmer.
Validating "models" of climate variability is not the same as valid "science" showing repeatable, validated phenomena where a sequence of events and conditions yields the same result over and over again.
You are clearly deeply ignorant of the scientific process.
They have never gotten to that point with any of the "models", and the science to date has not proven anything other than it is warmer today then it was during the Little Ice Age.
Science doesn't "prove" anything. Science deals with evidence, and the scientific evidence clearly shows AGW.
Yes, just keep repeating and repeating and repeating these lies until they become true. That's how propaganda works. Not a single shred of evidence. Just keep repeating those vague and unsubstantiated accusations.
I did read those so-called "damining" e-mails. Turns out all of it was quote-mining or otherwise taken out of context. Oops.
Heh....attack the person, right? That's always a reasonable argument. Actually he is one of the worlds foremost experts in cloud physics, which is why he has problems with global warming. He is highly aware of how poorly the models account for his area of expertise.
Lindzen might be an expert at something, but he has completely failed to produce research that shows his doubts to be based on facts rather than his right-wing political opinions. Either he produces research which shows that he's right, or he doesn't. Again, he has failed. And he keeps lying too. Because of his right-wing political views.
Lindzen is a dishonest asshole who keeps fueling his overlords in the oil industry.
His case being that he rejects the scientific facts because politicians are using it in ways he disagrees with. Yet another denialist fucktard who rejects the facts because they contradict his ideology.
Correction: "the fossil fuel industry, automobile industry, and wal-mart-like fossil-fuel-based mega-scale consumer goods distribution industry have many thousands of times more money at stake (~$10 trillion annually) on the outcome of this debate than do the scientists in question"
The "common ground" is that the scientists keep doing science without being harassed by denialists, and denialists stop being morons, and start accepting the facts.
You are very confused, and mixing science and politics. The fact of AGW is what the denialists are denying. You are talking about disagreements over policy based on the fact of AGW, but that has got nothing to do with the science.
No data was hidden. No scientific integrity was compromised. No peer-review was stifled. At worst, all they did was to decide not to put up with the same old bullshit from a specific group of denialists anymore. This group had a history of FUD, lies, flooding and Denial of Service attacks.
Written by a serious environmentalist. It presents results of 20 or so very eminent people in the fields related to climatology. None of them 'deny' global warming, but each has fundamental results that are in conflict with the global warming narrative.
And just about all of them are not even climate scientists, and they have ties to right-wing think tanks like the Heartland Institute. Fail.
That clip has Richard Lindzen in it. Richard Lindzen has tried to publish research which disproves AGW. He has utterly failed, for all these years. When he doesn't agree with the consensus, it's not because any research. It's because of his political views (he has ties to right-wing think tanks like the Heartland Institute).
So it's really, really interesting that you claim that someone disagrees for different reasons. Lindzen most certainly does not. He rejects the facts because he doesn't like them, and he has got no facts of his own to counter them.
"Decide for yourself", he bleats before he links to a right-wing think tank/industry front group. Then he refers to well known liar Watts who cherry-picked surface stations, and even those surface stations didn't show any major changes from the complete list of stations. Fail.
They like to talk about all the 'evil corporations' who have a vested interest in poisoning the earth
No, they have a vested interest in not losing their business model.
They often talk as if the scientists (who get their grants primarily from governments) are as pure as the driven snow
They don't have to be, since science is all about independent verification. You aren't supposed to take any single scientist's word for anything.
So if I bring up the fact that politicians stand to gain from the acceptance of AGW, it would be unlikely I would also be a proponent of the AGW theory.
Politicians stand to gain all sorts of things from all sorts of things. Doesn't change the facts. But it's good that you admit to ignoring the facts because they seem to contradict your ideology. A rare case of honesty there.
If you find a proponent of drastic action to fend off climate change that has previously acknowledged the 'money and control' motive of politicians, I'm interested in the link.
Now you are just being retarded. You keep whining about politicians, but you defend corporations to the death. The motives of corporations are equally nasty. Why are you defending the proponents of a corporateocrocy?
Gee, you are using the exact same fallacious bullshit arguments as creationists. The reason, of course, is that denialists and creationists are two groups that overlap to a great extent. Right-wing morons who reject scientific facts because they don't match their ideology.
The CRU e-mail thing actually opened my eyes. Everything became so much clearer. I used to be a skeptic and I was ignorant of the facts. I dismissed the scientific consensus, or rather, I had no idea what the consensus was. Then I started noticing all sorts of claims about the CRU e-mails, and of course had to double-check. Turns out every single claim of fraud turned out to be nothing but quote-mining or blatant fabrications.
And that was just the start of it. The more I learned, the more I realized that the "skeptics" were actually denialists who were using all sorts of dirty tricks to win the debate.
I realized they acted exactly like creationists, quote-mining, lies, appeals to false authority and all!
I now have some knowledge on the matter, and I know what the scientific fact show that human activity is warming the planet.
And I have a newfound disgust for the creationists of the AGW debate.
The whole thing opened my eyes. The scientists are not the ones doing the nasty stuff. The creatiodeniers are.
The "e-mails appeared to show scientists berating skeptics in sometimes intensely personal attacks, discussing ways to shield their data from public records laws, and discussing ways to keep skeptics' research out of peer-reviewed journals,"
Yes, just keep repeating and repeating and repeating these lies until they become true. That's how propaganda works.
Are you fucking retarded? France? Opera is Norwegian. Nokia is Finnish. Where on earth did France enter the picture? The only anti-something here is obviously you. Your blind hatred of Europe, and France in particular, turns you into a drooling moron. You are nothing but an ignorant bigot.
And again, you did not explain why union members at Opera would lobby for legal action against Apple!
Slashdot Mirror
There has indeed been warming in the last "7+" (you mean 10 years, don't you? The old denialist talking-point).
No, it got warmer.
You are clearly deeply ignorant of the scientific process.
Science doesn't "prove" anything. Science deals with evidence, and the scientific evidence clearly shows AGW.
I did read those so-called "damining" e-mails. Turns out all of it was quote-mining or otherwise taken out of context. Oops.
No, that is exactly the conclusion one can draw from your drivel.
Lindzen might be an expert at something, but he has completely failed to produce research that shows his doubts to be based on facts rather than his right-wing political opinions. Either he produces research which shows that he's right, or he doesn't. Again, he has failed. And he keeps lying too. Because of his right-wing political views.
Lindzen is a dishonest asshole who keeps fueling his overlords in the oil industry.
Not for the same reason. W3C standards are open and free. H.264 is patent-encumbered and therefore closed. It is in no way like any open web standard.
The science has validated itself through the scientific process. But hey, keep being a denialist fucktard!
In a nutshell: You reject the scientific facts because politicians are using it in ways you disagree with.
Nice one, denialist fucktard.
His case being that he rejects the scientific facts because politicians are using it in ways he disagrees with. Yet another denialist fucktard who rejects the facts because they contradict his ideology.
Correction: "the fossil fuel industry, automobile industry, and wal-mart-like fossil-fuel-based mega-scale consumer goods distribution industry have many thousands of times more money at stake (~$10 trillion annually) on the outcome of this debate than do the scientists in question"
The "common ground" is that the scientists keep doing science without being harassed by denialists, and denialists stop being morons, and start accepting the facts.
Still doesn't change the fact that AGW is a fact. A fact doesn't stop being a fact just because you don't like the consequences.
You are very confused, and mixing science and politics. The fact of AGW is what the denialists are denying. You are talking about disagreements over policy based on the fact of AGW, but that has got nothing to do with the science.
No data was hidden. No scientific integrity was compromised. No peer-review was stifled. At worst, all they did was to decide not to put up with the same old bullshit from a specific group of denialists anymore. This group had a history of FUD, lies, flooding and Denial of Service attacks.
Politicians are liars, but the scientists are showing you the facts: AGW is happening.
And just about all of them are not even climate scientists, and they have ties to right-wing think tanks like the Heartland Institute. Fail.
No, he has been treating dishonest denialists as dishonest denialists.
This is of course nonsense. Pure wishful speculation.
So it's really, really interesting that you claim that someone disagrees for different reasons. Lindzen most certainly does not. He rejects the facts because he doesn't like them, and he has got no facts of his own to counter them.
"Decide for yourself", he bleats before he links to a right-wing think tank/industry front group. Then he refers to well known liar Watts who cherry-picked surface stations, and even those surface stations didn't show any major changes from the complete list of stations. Fail.
No, they have a vested interest in not losing their business model.
They don't have to be, since science is all about independent verification. You aren't supposed to take any single scientist's word for anything.
Politicians stand to gain all sorts of things from all sorts of things. Doesn't change the facts. But it's good that you admit to ignoring the facts because they seem to contradict your ideology. A rare case of honesty there.
Now you are just being retarded. You keep whining about politicians, but you defend corporations to the death. The motives of corporations are equally nasty. Why are you defending the proponents of a corporateocrocy?
Gee, you are using the exact same fallacious bullshit arguments as creationists. The reason, of course, is that denialists and creationists are two groups that overlap to a great extent. Right-wing morons who reject scientific facts because they don't match their ideology.
And that was just the start of it. The more I learned, the more I realized that the "skeptics" were actually denialists who were using all sorts of dirty tricks to win the debate.
I realized they acted exactly like creationists, quote-mining, lies, appeals to false authority and all!
I now have some knowledge on the matter, and I know what the scientific fact show that human activity is warming the planet.
And I have a newfound disgust for the creationists of the AGW debate.
The whole thing opened my eyes. The scientists are not the ones doing the nasty stuff. The creatiodeniers are.
Correction: McIntyre is lying and spinning as per usual. Denialists always do.
Yes, just keep repeating and repeating and repeating these lies until they become true. That's how propaganda works.
No, I don't understand why the hell a union would lobby for anything like this. And you have failed to explain why.
And again, you did not explain why union members at Opera would lobby for legal action against Apple!