I enjoyed Far Cry, Crysis and Crysis Warhead. The last of those 3 was particularly good. I paid for all 3 (the latter two on Steam). Honestly, how many people are actually going to download these who would otherwise have bought the game? I don't think it's all that many, given release is only a month or so away.

They've changed all passwords due to the attack (I got a fresh, random one). I have a vague worry that my email address will turn up somewhere I don't want it to, but apart from that there's no other useful personal information on my profile, which, when I come to think of it is kind-of ironic for a dating site :p.

Very clever. Mod Up.

... or perhaps I was watching a different movie....

Guess what, I didn't say there wasn't any warming. I said the warming we have experienced is well within the bounds of natural variation and therefore is nothing we can do anything about.

So, you admit the polar bear population is healthy and can easily see that this has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with the fact that man is shooting them less. Congratulations, you're now a denier.

You consistently fail to make any kind of point, so I expect you aren't taken very seriously either.

I'm not a right-winger, as I make clear on James Dellingpole's blog whenever he puts down his AGW pen and starts attacking social policy.

Secondly, I'm not sure where you get your "thousands of scientists" from. As far as I know, the consensus science is produced by a few dozen at most, with the rest unwilling to criticise for fear of destroying their careers. Many institutions and departments are dependent on global warming alarmist money to continue operating. It is hardly surprising all papers have to include "because of man-made CO2" in them in order to get published, is it?

This is no different to the great Ozone scam which, it turns out, is an entirely naturally occurring feature of the atmosphere and almost nothing whatsoever to do with man-made CFC's. Eventually science gets it right. But the proponents of the Great Alarm never apologise for their previous, erroneous assertions, despite the billions that get spent because of them.

Who was it who said science progresses one funeral at a time?

Sorry, but polar bear population is at an all-time high. In the Davis Strait area, for example, it's increased from around 850 in 1980 to over 2,100 today.

Similarly, coral reefs and associated sea-life are more threatened by fishing practices than they are by anything else. Ocean acidification is the next great scam. Life-forms like corals will rapidly adapt to small changes in ocean PH, as they have been doing for hundreds of millions of years, unless you're suggesting ocean PH has been the same, to within tenths of a unit, for all of that time.

The problem you're exhibiting is generally called a discontinuous mind You're simply parroting everything you've read on alarmist websites, without actually thinking it through for yourself, or following up your references.

Unsubstantiated assertions. Statements of belief, not fact.

Sorry, when I say good, I mean Excellent.

Unsubstantiated assertion. I regularly get moderator points here and have good karma. End of story.

Yes, I did link to Watts - but rather, the point was to link to an article about edit wars at Wikipedia and the fact that the main editor warrior had been banned by Wikipedia, which he has (it was a 6 month I believe). There aren't many AGW sections at wikipedia that weren't edited by him.

Sorry, I meant 1940 to 1980, during the "global cooling" scare.

Did you watch the pea under the thimble?

The rate of warming over the last half of that period was almost double that for the period as a whole

That doesn't compare the first half with the second, it compares the second with the entire period. Given the stasis/cooling from 1930 to 1950, it's hardly surprising that this is the case. It also choses 1906 as the starting point and 2005 as the end point. Why? Presumably it's been edited by William Connolley.