Well yeah. So why do you seem to think an experiment about how real greenhouses work has anything to do with the physics of CO2 blocking radiative transfer in the infrared spectrum? (Leaving aside the question of how one unpublished, non-peer-reviewed experiment can be considered to have "thoroughly discredited" anything).

You really do have a weird idea of science, don't you?

If you're referring to your pet list of papers, sure, many of them do provide useful data about the climate - just not for your blanket claims that there is no significant consensus.

Your insistence that peer-reviewed and published surveys are statistically invalid and "cherry-picked" simply because they were selected for the words "climate change" doesn't exactly help your case either, particularly when the peer reviewers obviously disagreed.

But mostly it's your complete lack of any vaguely comprehensive surveys that support your own personal beliefs. It's as if you think that blogs casting doubt on the multiple studies that have been done, somehow proves the opposite of what those studies show. Even if you managed to find peer-reviewed papers that showed conclusively that each one of those surveys, and the IPCC's own review, were all done incorrectly (which you certainly haven't done), that still wouldn't prove anything about the consensus.

Only a comprehensive, peer-reviewed survey that clearly shows a more even split of opinion can be considered "evidence" for your claims, and even that would have to be weighed against all the other evidence against it.

I understand science well enough to know that evidence-free claims won't get you far.

ORLY? How does it do that, when it makes no quantitative comparison to the opposing view? That list does not even pretend to be a comparative survey; what leads you to believe it refutes anything? But you keep pointing to it like it's proof that all the other science is unimportant.

Ah, so you think a search phrase to exclude papers that don't even mention climate change is "cherry-picking" of papers that support anthropogenic climate change, while also managing to exclude papers that provide evidence against AGW. Got it. And Oreskes too, though you provide even less basis for that claim. And by extension, I should also take your unspoken, evidence-free word that the various other surveys, and the IPCC itself, are also working entirely off biased data, since they happen to arrive at similar conclusions?

Too bad the expert peer reviewers disagreed with you; I think I'll go with their opinions of what constitutes valid statistical methodology, rather than some random commenter's unsourced claims. Like I said, if you have better peer-reviewed data, produce it, as nothing you've come up with so far carries any weight.

Follow the citations here.

That claim is not supported by your link, as far as I can tell from the information available. The survey didn't even aim to measure consensus, only to correlate scientific views with non-scientific beliefs - but the quote "We suggest that AMS should: attempt to convey the widespread scientific agreement about climate change" (emphasis mine) pretty clearly endorses the claim of scientific consensus, despite your insinuations of bias.

Spoken like a true denialist: "I don't have to have reliable data that supports my position, I just believe your data is wrong." No surprise here.

You keep trotting out that invisionfree list of selected papers, as if that somehow invalidates the entire body of work on climate science over the last few decades ((tens of thousands of papers) - then you actually accuse peer-reviewed surveys of cherry-picking? Your double standards are breathtaking.

FTFY.

Those "rebuttals" to Cook et al 2013 that try to claim the 97% consensus is bogus? Maybe you should try analysing the data yourself instead of parroting someone else's misinformation; I did. My own findings: 41 times more papers (986) explicitly endorse AGW than explicitly reject it (24); 64 times more papers (3896) implicitly endorse AGW than implicitly reject it (78). That's a crapload of real, peer-reviewed evidence that the deniers are still desperately pretending doesn't exist.

If you truly believe this is not an accurate survey of the state of climate science, despite similar results to half a dozen other surveys and despite agreeing with the positions held by the IPCC's own comprehensive surveys and every reputable scientific institution out there, then do please produce a more accurate survey, and get it peer-reviewed - if you can. Then we can talk.

You may laugh, but the terrorists are all over that.

[citation needed]. Burden of proof is on you.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up for me.

Eight independent reviews completely cleared the "climategate" scientists of any charges of scientific misconduct.

The only people who still believe there was anything dodgy going on are the deniers who insist that a handful of sentences taken out of context somehow invalidate decades of scientific data from scientists all over the world.

Dr Pielke (the author of the article) actually is a climate scientist, and a relatively respected one. He has published a lot of good work, though his conclusions are sometimes controversial.

But the GP's questions were about what the actual weather was doing, not about the economic side of Pielke's analysis.

Well, here is a major study: 19 different peer-reviewed analyses by 70 climate scientists in 18 separate research groups. Brief summary of their findings:

• * Climate change helped raise the temperatures during the run of 100F days in 2012’s American heat wave;
• * drove the record loss of Arctic sea ice;
• * fueled the devastating storm surge of hurricane Sandy;
• * heatwaves are now four times as likely;

However, they also found there are of course still natural events that climate change has not affected, such as:

• * Britain’s miserable summer in 2012, which was the rainiest in a century;
• * the Netherlands’ cold spell in 2012;
• * the drought that devastated America’s corn belt;
• * the droughts in Kenya and Somalia.

TL;DR: Climate change IS affecting our weather, but only some things.

Why would a whole branch of science suddenly get untrustworthy? Did the peer review process selectively stop working, or are they all in a massive global conspiracy to sabotage their own careers, perhaps?

Or perhaps it's just uninformed opinion that says it's untrustworthy, which has got to be one of the bigger examples of irony around.

The Nexus S was made by Samsung way back in 2010.

It hasn't been on sale for years. I really don't think it's relevant to new buyers.

An interesting point I heard about income equality: pretty much everyone in this thread is in the 1%. The 99% are in the developing nations.

We complain that the moneyed elite are exerting undue political influence to keep the money for themselves, yet from a global perspective, anti-immigration laws are doing the exact same thing. The western middle-class has had kind of a raw deal lately, but not nearly as raw as the bottom 6 billion. One could argue that outsourcing, even with low wages by western standards, still brings that extra income to the Indian workers etc, thus improving global equality.

Of course there are still very valid points to be made about how those lower wages benefit the moneyed elite even further, but it's a start - and as money starts to flow towards developing nations, skills will improve, living standards will rise, and so will wages, equalising things further, at least for most people. In the meantime, we ourselves are probably better served by focusing on skill sets that aren't so easily replaced.

First, what on earth are you on about?

Second, how about we draw a line between "education" (which I'll define as evidence-based teaching, and a good thing) and "indoctrination" (which I'll define as belief-based teaching; not automatically bad, unless it conflicts with evidence).

Third, evidence is evidence. You can ignore it if you like, but it won't go away. And you can make whatever tenuous speculative connections you wish to any bizarro conclusion of your choice, but do keep them out of reach of impressionable children.