"Climate confusionist", oh, a new phrase to "defeat" your mortal enemies. Grow up.

I thought they got it wrong by around 150%. But hey, what's 50% between scientists when you're already 100% wrong? The whole argument is utterly moronic. They don't know jack-shit about anything much. They can measure temperature reasonably well, but even there the temptation to go back and "adjust" past temperatures to make them cooler and "adjust" current temperatures to make them warmer, thus exaggerating the trend, is too much for them. The fact that we allow them to get away with this is one of the reasons public trust in science and scientists is rapidly reducing. Pretty soon these "scientists" (doing science in its broadest possible sense) will be held in as high esteem as lawyers and estate agents.

and what we've observed is the warming that was predicted

Don't be silly. What's happened is scientists have absolutely no clucking clue what caused the warming, or indeed the cooling, or indeed the warming before that or the cooling before that, but nevertheless will hoover up huge grants for their research institutions by pretending they do.

Many scientists concurred, he said, that recent heatwaves and floods were evidence of climate change already on the march

What a load of utter shite.

I pointed out that the heat is apparently "missing" in the deep ocean, but that argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever because the ocean heats the atmosphere more than the atmosphere heats the ocean, as we know from El Nino and La Nina. It must do. It's 1000 x the heat capacity. Again, thermodynamics. What is wrong with you?

Feminism, like many "isms" is about the politics of special interest groups. You should see the cat fights between feminists and transsexuals; the way many feminists deny the rights of transsexuals to get involved in feminist issues. It's quite an eye opener.

What he needs to do is concentrate on making games that are fun to play.

Are you suggesting El Niño and La Niña are influenced by the temperature of the atmosphere as influenced by man with a few parts per million of CO2? The ocean has one thousand times the heat capacity of the atmosphere. The hypothesis is insane in those terms alone. Re-read your thermodynamics textbook.

But that can't be so. According to Trenbreth and other morons the extra energy is hiding at the bottom of the ocean. If it's hiding there, how the hell is it generating "weather" in the US? You need to think through your hypothesis.

Your children won't know or remember what a category 5 hurricane looks like. Still, at least they got the snow back.

Dude, you'll get modded "troll" here at slashdot if you make sense on things like "climate change". When science displaced religion, all of the Inquisitors became climate scientists. Judith Curry is quite concerned about it actually.

You can't overturn a 1952 conviction for something that was against the law in 1952. That would make the legal system a complete nonsense, with people's convictions for past illegal acts being overturned as the law changed.

It really depends on what the product will be used for, doesn't it. I mean you don't need to name a public institute to do that. You could just as well hire people into GCHQ. So my guess is that it's nothing to do with intelligence as such; simply the government trying to pick a winner for the future. And as we know, government is absolutely terrible at doing that. It's £42 million down the drain I suppose.

If Freedman had trouble in South America then that's entirely due to the weakness and inherent corruption of the (extractive) institutions there, the existence of which inherited the weakness and corruption of their forebears (in this case mostly the Spanish and Portuguese). North America inherited the classical liberal tradition of Britain, which itself had driven the industrial revolution. That is why the industrial revolution happened in Britain and not in Spain or Portugal and it's the main reason why South America is so much poorer than North America despite being arguably at least as blessed with natural resources and settled around the same time.

If you're talking about investment banks and banks in general, even there government involvement has made them MORE of a risk, not less. Investment banking used to be separated from retail banking for starters. Then you have government savings guarantees which alter behaviour (who cares, the government has guaranteed the money). Then there's the 10,000 (yes TEN THOUSAND) pages of regulations government imposes on the financial services industry to try to control it, that has the perverse affect of making it much harder for new entrants to arrive in the marketplace (cost of compliance). Worse, nobody, not one single legislator, understands it or has even read it. Who could? It would take a lifetime. They still pop up with new rules and regulations every so often, with no damned clue what the consequences of their actions will actually be.

The fact that banks blew up was because of Government, not despite it.