What sort of apologist BS are you trying to pass off here? Federal government spending is completely out of control. From Dave Ramsey . What would happen if John Q. Public and his wife called my show with these kinds of numbers? Hereâ(TM)s how their financial situation would stack up: If their household income was $55,000 per year, theyd actually be spending $96,500â"$41,500 more than they made! That means theyre spending 175% of their annual income! So, in 2011 theyd add $41,500 of debt to their current credit card debt of $366,000!

I agree. To me, the best thing to counteract group think would be to a bi-valence of scores. There are many occasion I only want to see the 0's and 1's on a story as that's where I think the most relevant and insightful comments are. It's not easy to do in the current system. Having a "flip" to turn 5's into 0's, 4's into 1's, etc. would make the site more useful to both sides of a polarizing issue.

LOL!! So they're "simplifying uncertainty"? And "that's how science works"? The summary for policy makers is marketing speak, *not* science and you're either ignorant of what real science is or fooling yourself. Which is it? Which one of the values above represents "settled science"? I think the only thing that is settled is that it's going to get slightly warmer, and that prediction is seriously in doubt. When do we get to call the IPCC out on the failures of their "Climate Scenarios"? (they're not brave enough for predictions). Or is that something we'll just sweep under the rug because it doesn't empower unscrupulous scientists and crooked bureaucrats and politicians? Oh yeah Working Group II. Thanks for mentioning that. That's where they predict the Himalayan Glaciers will melt by 2030 right?

It's good to see the sheeple at slashdot are still myopic. Technically skill that never transfers to any other field, *especially* common sense.

Stupidity? I already told you I agree with the superior Climate overminds. Or do you doubt their divinely inspired wisodm AC?

Try studying up on the scientific method. It's up to the Climate "Scientists" (i use that term very loosely) to prove that CO2 causes dangerous warming. About as close to real evidence you'll get is in the latest IPCC report where confidence is danced about with terms like ... "In this Summary for Policymakers, the following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood, using expert judgement, of an outcome or a result: Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence, Extremely likely > 95%, Very likely > 90%, Likely > 66%, More likely than not > 50%, Unlikely 33%, Very unlikely 10%, Extremely unlikely 5% (see Box TS.1 for more details)." Read it for yourself with an open mind. The notion of catastrophic man made global warming has *nothing* to back it up. www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

Why do climate scientists need real world observations? I thought they already new the evil co2 spewing human race would destroy itself by raising the temperature 5.3456345 degrees on July 4 2104 at 10:01 and 234 ms.

Yes, Some of the nuances of group think still evade me. Thanks for pointing that out. :)

Sorry for the double post, but your attitude (which seems to be quite popular at /. ) is one of extreme gullibility. You completely trust not only the scientists, but the bureaucrats, lobbiests and bankers who are sure that sending a torrent of money their way will solve the warming problem that will arrive in 100 years. LOL!!! Truly a naive position if ever there was one. What is scientific about the AGW hypothesis? *NOTHING*. It's some untestable models and some really bad statistics with a million "rider grants" that want to make sure they get funded. Those models haven't gotten the last 10 years right until *this* year. What does that say for any confidence that should be had in this travesty of pseudo-science, lobbying, environmentalism and socialsim?

All talking points you've received from on high. Sorry. Your willingness to barter away my freedoms based on little more than some rhetoric from some lobbiests, bureaucrats and scientists who are all in line at the gravy train. All parties are free to solve this perceived problem on their own without any interference from the government. You and those who subscribe to the Catastrophic man made global warming arguments would seem to be better at rationalizing and making self serving statements than actually proving anything about the environment or solving any of its problems.

Great line of reasoning there. Hey!!! So the Catastrophic man made global warming argument was a bunch of hooey, but at least we're not terrorists!!

That says *nothing* about whether the warming is man made or natural. It's completely unrepsonsive to the issue.

These mods are just hilarious. I imagine if I say something like cap and trade is unwarranted because the climates sensitivity to CO2 is not known I would get modded troll. Could you just mark this post as a troll please? I'd hate to increase my carbon footprint with another post.

Yeah, you go do that without the tax credits genius. See how long you stay in business.

So Mr. Moderator. What went through your head when you modded Troll? Let me guess. You saw "Enviro Chicken Little" and thought "OH, he must be one of those DENIERS I've heard about in Mrs. Kerbapple's class. I'll do everyone a service and mod troll!!! Yipeee!!