You are so attached to your provably(and proven) wrong belief that you don't even read the abstract before spew you emotional based nonsense and polluting the comments.

Nothing in the study refute the fact that excess greenhouse gasses are trapping energy.

Unless you are ready to overturn 100+ years of science the proves greenhouse gasses trap energy?

anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) is a fact.
In fact, it's so simply even you could devise a test.
1) Visible light strikes the earth Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it pass right on through. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
3) When visible light strike an object, IR is generated. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
4) Green house gasses, such as CO2, absorb energy(heat) from IR. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
5) Humans produce more CO2(and other green house gasses) then can be absorbed through the cycle. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes

Each one of those has been tested, a lot. You notice deniers don't actual address the facts of AGW? Don't have a test that shows those facts to be false?
So now you have to answer:
Why do you think trapping more energy(heat) in the lower atmosphere does not impact the climate?

no.
They have shown that a local effect, pacific northwest, might have had a bigger impact on local winds. The fact tat ther wind changes can be do yo e;levate GLOBAL energy trapping isn't addressed in any clear way.

The fact that they used global model and tried to apply them to a local event is suspect.
No matter, it's one study. Lets see follow up.
NOTHING in the study refutes the fact that the lower atmosphere of the earth is warming do to excess CO2 trapping energy.

If you don't think excess greenhouse gasses, (CO2, tc) are cause an increase in trapped energy, then you are an idiot. This is proven science.

anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) is a fact.
In fact, it's so simply even you could devise a test.
1) Visible light strikes the earth Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it pass right on through. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
3) When visible light strike an object, IR is generated. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
4) Green house gasses, such as CO2, absorb energy(heat) from IR. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
5) Humans produce more CO2(and other green house gasses) then can be absorbed through the cycle. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes

Each one of those has been tested, a lot. You notice deniers don't actual address the facts of AGW? Don't have a test that shows those facts to be false?
So now you have to answer:
Why do you think trapping more energy(heat) in the lower atmosphere does not impact the climate?

"Please. Atheists are so sensitive. "
Inflammatory language. - Flamebait

"Please. Atheists are so sensitive. "
  intentionally misrepresents a viewpoint - Troll

So, modding down is correct.

That's not good sci fi. That's good writing. You can do the exact same thing in any setting.

Most writing is 'X that doesn't bother to go beyond 'narrative fiction', except in X'

No, they were banned in some public schools

We have a banned book reading thing I do with my kids most years. Pick a book, read it, talk about it.

Maybe if you stop shoving you religion down everyones throat and kept it to your self we wouldn't need to be so defensive?

not everywhere. In some place they are,or have been, banned. Religious nutters strike again!

" I would expect only books appropriate for the ages of the students. "
and that is where you fail.

What is appropriated? Who are you to decide?

" The first two Harry Potter books are okay for 8- and 9- year-old children, but each book gets progressively darker."
And? YOU seriously underestimate children.

". I, personally wouldn't want my son to read The Golden Compass until he can hear an opposing viewpoint"
wow. You're a pretty horrible parent. I can't imagine my kids being old enough to read that and not being able to understand different view points. Or maybe you kids are just potato heads.

MY kids have been reading since they where around 2. at 12, their reading level is well above what is laughingly called 'young adult'. ALthoug they still enjoy some YA titles.
Maybe you should red to your kids and explain opposing viewpoints? No, of course not you want to indoctrinate them into what you like instead of respect and trust your children.

You're type of thing that permeated parents love the last 20 years is why no one can have discourse, and why education and critical thinking is failing.
Here is an example of you brilliant thinking that yo are foisting onto you poor children:
" I support traditional marriages,"
WTF does that even mean? It's really nonsense.
Do you mean by state or by church? do you know anyone who says traditional marriage should happen? Or is it a passive aggressive message to remove rights from other people? Do you not understand that marriage among anyone other then nobles is only a few hundred years old?

that most people who chose 1984, didn't read or understand 1984.

Except he can't defend himself against someone who can continue to make post whether or not they are accurate.

He could spend every day., all day trying to defend each time a comment is made. That would be pretty wasteful.
The person making the comment could actually go through normal peer review channels.
BTW AC comment aren't actually peer review.

Have you ever tried to defend yourself against one or more people making AC comments? It is not possible.

You would to find out who your accusers are. You know, and important bit of american legal system.

He isn't suing to have the post pulled, he is suing to find out who he needs to defend himself against.

But you can do many at the same time.
What? you think when they get to the wait part while someone at the university reviews it they don't do anything?
Same thing with papers.

"autism and vaccinations was a fraud and an abuse of the existing grant system."
Nope. It was done to discredit current vaccine so they will use his new patent technique.
Grants were irrelevant in that case.

If all you are doing is trying to abuse the grant system for money, then you would be better off working at walmart.

" which already consumes more of our lives than would be considered reasonable in non-academic jobs."
Don't bet on it.

Unless I missed something, he is suing to find out who is spreading lies against him. From his perspective.

Really, if someone is spreading lies about you and disrupting your lively hood, you should be able to defend yourself.