If natural systems can sink all supposed manmade change, why could natural systems cause all the change too? If the natural sink capability massively underrated too, what's to say there's really a cause to worry at all?

If we really will be screwed by society being forced to change due to climate, what's to say we won't be equally or greater screwed if we're forced to change due to policy? If natural variability is underrated as suggested by the previous paragraph, what's to say we can't be fucked over twice; first by policy and then by natural climate drift? Unless you're denying ice ages we already know that natural drift have a very wide range.

What about the people with stake in large multinational wind and solar producers claiming we can save ourself with all-renewable society? Are they saints incapable of lying, or could it be that any alarmism and climate hype serves their cause and fills their pockets?

Why should we listen to people like you who claim that we're bound for disaster with certainity, while at the same time IPCC is revising their predictions downwards for every new report released. Why should we suppress the debate by claiming it's all settled when it obviously isn't?

Why is polarizing hardline rethoric constantly used by environmentalists? Why is the pro-agw side always the good side and everything else is universally bad? Could it be that you're not actually seeking facts to improve earth science, but just want to advance your activist agenda and shallow ideological belief?

Why should I trust a non-peer reviewed blogpost from the PR outlet of the people finding themself in an embarassing pinch due to the catastrophic failure of their models?

Why should I even trust their peer reviewed material when it obviously have minimal to no predictive power and by their own admission have become a failure due to temperatures being wildly divergent to their models/guesses.

What functions do peer review fill when the peers are just as clueless as the authors but just happen to share the hunch or opinon? We might as well use anonymous online polling.

The hiatus still continues.
And yes there is a hiatus nowdays even in the mainstream pro-agw camp, saying otherwise makes you a denier.

I was thinking more about a way to make the schoolbus obsolete.

Do you ever feel responsible or bad for all the lives 4chan have ruined?
I mean there's a lot of anons that have a very unhealthy relationship to their favourite board and spends most of their waking time posting.

Should your google queries be put in a slow lane with 10k ms ping because they didn't fork over $100 mil for premium service?
Should netflix pay premium for every mb because they're a "high bandwidth user" or face throttling to speeds where compression drops to 120p?

Should ISPs be allowed to have an even more oppressive position than they already have?

According to your logic my toxicity model for iron in well water in Nowhereistan is unaffected by the fact that arsenic levels was elevated by 15000 times above normal in the data samples, because it was at that level all along.

a) What about the hiatus?
b) instrumental data from the layers of the atmosphere does not agree with the proposed mechanisms of stratospheric heating or whatever was suggested.
c) human CO2 emissions are naturally absorbed, just not as fast as we emit it. but given a) and b) and the fact that CO2 is non toxic and improves plant growth I see no reason why we should care about that as opposed to particulate pollutions and toxic emissions.

Why would you need luck to survive the escape vehicle separation? It's obviously designed to accelerate at sublethal G forces.
Regarding the challenger disaster: it had no escape possibilities AND the crew telemetry from the challenger showed them as alive until the remnant they were seated in hit the sea.

Because unlike your life they're doing something interesting.

Current climate models are useless and needs to be reworked, observations have contradicted their predictions and the fundamental assumption that "CO2 = main thermostat, everything else is irrelevant, lets make a wildly increasing graph and alarmist claims" have been wrong from day 1 and very much not scientific at all.

This paper doesn't change anything at all. It's just a restatement of a year old apologist paper.

>Please officer I'm 20 minutes late for work not a terrorist!
>Sorry, we need to verify your identity and make you 20 minutes later
>Portable scanner: warning stress level increasing, violence imminent
"Sorry boss, I got shot on my way to work this morning"

Wouldn't call it vaporware, you could cast molten copper into an ant colony and get something looking like that, or 3D print.
For the latter you can't put the "Thousand of lives were lost to bring you this fine piece of hardware" label onto it though.

The SLS is not a deep space vehicle. It's a vehicle to divert tax payer money into the pocket of private enterprises that give a share to politicians. Assuming it ever takes off, it'll be an outdated overpriced piece of shit.

It's not actually work related. It's about their opinions.

The author of the article isn't getting shit because she's a lead developer, she's getting shit because she writes articles on gender equality in gaming. Her example persons are also having some female-centric activities.

If I write a gaming opinion piece called "Mens world: why game devs should ignore all whining women and focus on their main demographic" I'd also get a lot of angry mail and spiteful messages. If I write a followup article after such hatemail called "Ruling elite: how a small minority of females with an interest in games try to hijack the industry and suppress dissident opinon" I'd get even more shit heaped onto me.

Is this a sign that I'm harassed because my gender? Is it a sign that the gaming demographic is full of bad persons? Or is it a sign that inflammatory opinion pieces will always result in hatemail?