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.

A shame the kids themselves don't get a say in their indoctrination & skewed education. I know parents need to make choices on behalf of their kids, but it's not always easy to watch.

Education is mandatory in most countries, regardless of religious beliefs, but I wonder how much control that allows over the curriculum.

Maybe it's the part where he makes unsubstantiated claims of bias and corruption against every scientist ever?

You only have to look back through his post history to see it all stems from his personal (and equally unsubstantiated) belief that AGW is a massive, money-grabbing hoax that all those "so-called scientists" have foisted on the unsuspecting public, no doubt at the prompting of the current liberal gubbermint (you know, despite similar research for 30 years). Seems clear to me that the cynicism resulting from climate science not saying what he wants to hear has spilled over into science in general.

When your only objection is some out-of-context and unsubstantiated quote about one of the reports from an unqualified writer, ignoring the actual substance completely, I naturally thought that meant you felt random opinions were actually important.

I guess they're only important if they say what you want to hear. Never mind the opinions of the respected economists and CEOs on my list (how many politicians can you count?), or the credentials of the reports' authors, or gee, the actual contents of the reports and all that cited data that backs them up, you go straight to the first contrary quote you can find, regardless of the total lack of substance or believability. Who exactly are you trying to convince here?

Wow, what an objection. No wonder you believe the denialists with that kind of genius of your own.