As soon as I hear the term "climate change deniers", or the more common "climate deniers", I know I'm listening to a climate evangelist. The cultist mentality that is coming out of the climate evangelism movement is a huge turn off.
But you are a denier, so what's wrong with being called a denier?
I think if the money, power and politics was taken out of climate science it might get better response from masses.
I agree. Tell your right-wing friends to stop spending millions of dollars to spread FUD and lies about the research. Problem solved.
As to data being deliberately destroyed, that is confirmed here.
Never happened, actually. They only deleted a small part of a local copy in order to save space when moving to a new location. The original data was still available where they licensed it from(!) in the first place.
And which part of "not statistically significant" confuses you?
No part of it, apparently. It clearly confuses you, since you evidently don't understand what it means. Hint: It does not mean "it has not warmed".
Global warming stopped.
Nope.
Solar Cycle theory says we are in for 30 years of cooling.
Actually, the sun has been warming the planet less, and yet the climate has warmed.
In the mean time, your prophet, messiah, whatever, admits there has been no warming in over a decade even though CO2 levels continue to rise, another "exalted member of the club" admits to lying in an official publication intended to influence public policy, and yet you still hold on to a blown hypothesis.
No, he did no such thing, and it is not a mere hypothesis. It is a scientific theory.
Much of the data will have to be revalidated by some one trusted by the "other" side.
Who might that be? All the well known denialist leaders have been repeatedly caught lying.
The current climate research has been overrun with people pushing a religious and political agenda.
Yes. They are the right-wing deniers. They are wasting people's time, so more of it is spent on pointless political debates, and less on actual scientific research (all of which confirms AGW, by the way).
He admitted there has been no warming in 15 years on the BBC.
Ah, the typical denier. He is completely ignorant, and merely parrots whatever the right-wing plogs he reads, and never bothers to check the facts. Jones admitted no such thing. Read it again, and ask someone what the quote means.
And we have this fine headline
Which is a lie, of course. It was a typo, nothing else.
The record snowfall on the East Coast is just icing on the cake.
Ah, the typical denier. He is completely ignorant, and merely parrots whatever the right-wing plogs he reads, and never bothers to check the facts.
They are however rejecting that human activity is the primary driving factor
So they are rejecting the facts. Why are they rejecting the facts if they are mere skeptics? A skeptic would not reject the facts. One who rejects the facts in this manner is a denialist.
believes the default position should be that we take it on faith that AGW is correct
No, you are the one with the faith. AGW is fact. You don't take it on faith. You know that there is scientific consensus, and unless you think you know better than the scientists, you should clearly spend more time educating yourself than discussing it.
There probably aren't that many who say that man isn't having an effect on the climate (I think we probably are). But there are many that don't know what that effect is and so far haven't been convinced that AGW is correct
Those people cannot be convinced because their political ideology compels them to ignore facts that they feel contradict their world view.
But I've since had some first-hand experience with bias, propaganda and selective reporting in the mainstream media on the subject of AGW.
There's your problem. You are using the mainstream media as an excuse to ignore the facts. Just because the mainstream media gets something wrong doesn't mean that they represent science. It's just a scapegoat. An excuse for you to reject unpleasant facts.
though AGW may even be correct, I have seen first hand that a lot of its proponents are arguing it on faith rather than facts
So what? Why do you even care? You should be looking at the facts, not how other people are behaving. Another excuse to willfully ignore the facts.
And also in this time, I've seen it shift from "Global Warming" to (when the former turned out to be too hard to prove) to "Climate change"
See, this is why you are a denier. You are spreading all these nonsensical lies. There has been no shift from global warming to climate change. It has always been about climate change, specifically global warming. You are exactly like creationists and tobacco deniers in that you are misrepresenting the science, and using excuses to willfully ignore the facts.
Remember that critics of AGW need not even actually be disputing whether or not there's warming, but merely questioning the extent of humanity's part in it. Yet it all gets shouted down as "denier".
No, you get shouted down as a denier because you act like one. Stop being dishonest, and people will stop calling you a denier. Your arguments clearly show that you are not merely "skeptical". You are outright denying facts you don't like, and making up excuses for doing so.
I've had people who know even less about climate science than I do (my knowledge on the subject is considerably higher than most people's and way less than a climate scientist)
Considering the nonsense you have produced so far, I find it hard to believe.
Evolution is nothing like this. The science behind evolution has been shown over and over for a very long time, it's even the basis for many medical theories. This supposed 'consensus' that I hear about has existed for how long?
Eveolution is exactly like this. The science behind AGW has been shown over and over for a very long time. And just like Evolution, people are rejecting the facts because they feel it's a threat to their ideology. The consensus about AGW has existed for decades. You can read research on it even back in the late 1800s.
You will notice that the exact same tactics are being used by both creationists, AGW denialists and tobacco denialists.
In such a case, asserting that the science is settled is only an appeal to authority (since the theory will not be verified to a reasonable extent within the time to debate) and is agitative.
Actually, this is wrong. The theory has been verified. That's why it's called a theory and not a hypothesis.
Well yes, the science is "settled", in that scientists know that the planet is warming, and that human emissions are causing it. These are observed facts. So they have moved on from that to investigating the actual details.
I'd have to assume that those that agree with 'climate-change' and don't have a the appropriate science background are irrelevant as well?
Not necessarily. Accepting the scientific consensus has been shown to be a great way to move on without having to learn every single little detail yourself. I don't know how to build a plane, but I know from experience that the methods they use to do so work. So even though I'm quite ignorant of the details, I have a stronger case than some nutcase who makes the obviously false claim that it's impossible for an airplane to stay in the air.
The climate has been changing for hundreds of thousands of years. But to me the name suggests there is some kind of unprecedented change to the climate that we are now tasked to study. Doesn't that prejudice the findings?
No, the findings were there before the panel was formed.
Since you know everything, why didn't you send them suggestions on how to do it? You can't come whining after it happened if you think you are so clever you know what they should have done.
By the way, are you saying that throwing kidnappers in jail is wrong? Since, after all, locking people up is generally not a good thing. But the government does it. Why is it right when the government locks a guy up for locking someone else up? You know, the old two wrongs thing...
giving the other browser manufacturers a big middle finger
Yeah, throwing childish tantrums would be just the icing on the cake for Microsoft. Great idea!
You realize how moronic you sound when suggesting something like that? It's like saying that a bank robberer should throw the money he stole into the fire when he gets caught just to give everyone else the middle finger.
LOL.
They could have left it up to the hardware manufacturers to put a browser of their choice on it.
Microsoft has a history of bullying hardware manufacturers into not doing that.
In other words, "I desperately tried to cherry-pick some better numbers by manipulating the cutoff date, but even that failed. But it almost worked."
No, that is your dishonest misrepresentation of what he said.
In other words, "I stand by the conclusions that my funding depends upon, no matter how thoroughly discredited the research becomes, no matter how much data I fail to produce, or how many FOI requests I have to ignore. Dude, it's all about the funding!"
Again, your dishonest misrepresentation of what he said. Pathetic indeed.
No, they want to be published, given additional grants (or political powers), tenure, and a research staff. Proving others wrong may or may not be the route to such things.
No, they do want to prove each other wrong because there's more money and glory in that than just repeating what everyone else is saying.
Have you ever tried to be published in a journal whose editor holds an opinion clearly contrary to your own?
Happens all the time. You have clearly never published anything.
I consider it a properly cynical application of "follow the money", a principle observed in all human interactions.
The money made in climate research is pathetic at best. The oil industry, on the other hand, pays really well. Oops.
AGW justifies grabbing every individual, and every society, by the throat: by regulating the use of energy.
Aha. Busted. You reject the facts (AGW) because you don't like the political implications. Exactly as I thought.
Ask anyone who actually does this stuff for a living. JS was not the main bottleneck. But it was the easiest thing to make fancy benchmarks and graphs for.
Slashdot Mirror
But you are a denier, so what's wrong with being called a denier?
I agree. Tell your right-wing friends to stop spending millions of dollars to spread FUD and lies about the research. Problem solved.
Never happened, actually. They only deleted a small part of a local copy in order to save space when moving to a new location. The original data was still available where they licensed it from(!) in the first place.
Now you know why you are a denier.
No part of it, apparently. It clearly confuses you, since you evidently don't understand what it means. Hint: It does not mean "it has not warmed".
Nope.
Actually, the sun has been warming the planet less, and yet the climate has warmed.
No, he did no such thing, and it is not a mere hypothesis. It is a scientific theory.
Who might that be? All the well known denialist leaders have been repeatedly caught lying.
Yes. They are the right-wing deniers. They are wasting people's time, so more of it is spent on pointless political debates, and less on actual scientific research (all of which confirms AGW, by the way).
Ah, the typical denier. He is completely ignorant, and merely parrots whatever the right-wing plogs he reads, and never bothers to check the facts. Jones admitted no such thing. Read it again, and ask someone what the quote means.
Which is a lie, of course. It was a typo, nothing else.
Ah, the typical denier. He is completely ignorant, and merely parrots whatever the right-wing plogs he reads, and never bothers to check the facts.
So they are rejecting the facts. Why are they rejecting the facts if they are mere skeptics? A skeptic would not reject the facts. One who rejects the facts in this manner is a denialist.
No, you are the one with the faith. AGW is fact. You don't take it on faith. You know that there is scientific consensus, and unless you think you know better than the scientists, you should clearly spend more time educating yourself than discussing it.
Those people cannot be convinced because their political ideology compels them to ignore facts that they feel contradict their world view.
There's your problem. You are using the mainstream media as an excuse to ignore the facts. Just because the mainstream media gets something wrong doesn't mean that they represent science. It's just a scapegoat. An excuse for you to reject unpleasant facts.
So what? Why do you even care? You should be looking at the facts, not how other people are behaving. Another excuse to willfully ignore the facts.
See, this is why you are a denier. You are spreading all these nonsensical lies. There has been no shift from global warming to climate change. It has always been about climate change, specifically global warming. You are exactly like creationists and tobacco deniers in that you are misrepresenting the science, and using excuses to willfully ignore the facts.
No, you get shouted down as a denier because you act like one. Stop being dishonest, and people will stop calling you a denier. Your arguments clearly show that you are not merely "skeptical". You are outright denying facts you don't like, and making up excuses for doing so.
Considering the nonsense you have produced so far, I find it hard to believe.
Thinks it's likely. Says that some unknown people... without any evidence what so ever. What a bunch of right-wing propaganda crap.
Eveolution is exactly like this. The science behind AGW has been shown over and over for a very long time. And just like Evolution, people are rejecting the facts because they feel it's a threat to their ideology. The consensus about AGW has existed for decades. You can read research on it even back in the late 1800s.
You will notice that the exact same tactics are being used by both creationists, AGW denialists and tobacco denialists.
Actually, this is wrong. The theory has been verified. That's why it's called a theory and not a hypothesis.
Evidence, please.
No, they were performing peer review, and decided to reject poor research because the research was poor.
Well yes, the science is "settled", in that scientists know that the planet is warming, and that human emissions are causing it. These are observed facts. So they have moved on from that to investigating the actual details.
Not necessarily. Accepting the scientific consensus has been shown to be a great way to move on without having to learn every single little detail yourself. I don't know how to build a plane, but I know from experience that the methods they use to do so work. So even though I'm quite ignorant of the details, I have a stronger case than some nutcase who makes the obviously false claim that it's impossible for an airplane to stay in the air.
No, right-wing demagogues are attacking the science. The science clearly shows man-made global warming.
The Gish Gallop. How predictable and creationist-like. Creationists, AGW deniers and tobacco deniers - all a bunch of right-wing morons.
No, the findings were there before the panel was formed.
Nice straw man there. You even fooled some gullible moderator into modding your nonsensical drivel up. Good job.
Awww, you poor thing! Maybe if you educated yourself insead of spewing straw men, people would stop treating you like the ignoramus that you are.
By the way, are you saying that throwing kidnappers in jail is wrong? Since, after all, locking people up is generally not a good thing. But the government does it. Why is it right when the government locks a guy up for locking someone else up? You know, the old two wrongs thing...
Yeah, throwing childish tantrums would be just the icing on the cake for Microsoft. Great idea!
You realize how moronic you sound when suggesting something like that? It's like saying that a bank robberer should throw the money he stole into the fire when he gets caught just to give everyone else the middle finger.
LOL.
Microsoft has a history of bullying hardware manufacturers into not doing that.
Sorry, but the Daily Mail is lying as usual.
No, that is your dishonest misrepresentation of what he said.
Again, your dishonest misrepresentation of what he said. Pathetic indeed.
No, they do want to prove each other wrong because there's more money and glory in that than just repeating what everyone else is saying.
Happens all the time. You have clearly never published anything.
The money made in climate research is pathetic at best. The oil industry, on the other hand, pays really well. Oops.
Aha. Busted. You reject the facts (AGW) because you don't like the political implications. Exactly as I thought.
Nonsense.
They did no such thing. They deleted a small part of a local copy. The original data was still safe where they licensed it from.
No, denialism is the religion. Like other religious zealots, you mindlessly repeat blatant lies about science.
Ask anyone who actually does this stuff for a living. JS was not the main bottleneck. But it was the easiest thing to make fancy benchmarks and graphs for.
Yeah... Except it isn't.
You are very wrong there. The strip they left is definitely needed, and I hope they don't copy Chrome.
Oh, it's you. You keep spamming Slashdot with the same trivial and irrelevant issue over and over again. Why?