I wouldn't worry about it. s.petry's subsequent post was offensive and unconstructive, so you didn't miss by much. :)

It was useless, because it was offtopic. It was hostile, because the clear implication is that you're an idiot for spending time on MMORPGs.

Your reply is likewise hostile, because it's patronizing and implies that the parent has lousy reading comprehension. It's probably useless too.

My post is both annoying and useless, but hopefully not hostile.

Yeah! And none of this $600 crap, either. I want a million bucks.

Yeah! Then it'll be FREE!

I'm with you, man! Screw cloud computing; I don't even trust these new-fangled computer things. And paper? That stuff can be PHOTOCOPIED!

Nuh-uh!

Yes, I've seen the 'escalator' animation and have read the relevant articles at skepticalscience. The real question isn't whether there's warming, it's what the slope of the red line actually is, when we add CO2 the way we have been.

I'm not saying that "unprecedented human activity cannot cause unprecedented environmental responses". I'm also not stating that "unprecedented human activity MUST cause unprecedented environmental responses", which you are. Look, from the IPCC AR5 report:
---
The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multi-century time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5C to 4.5C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6C (medium confidence)16. The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the same. This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean, and new estimates of radiative forcing. {TFE6.1, Figure 1; Box 12.2}

16 No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.
---
So the ever-so-sophisticated estimate (sorry, not 'guess'!) is from 1.5C to 4.5C, and unlike previous reports, they declined to give a best estimate (previously mentioned at 2.5C with high confidence). I believe that most people would agree that we don't have much of a problem at 1.5C and that we have a big problem if it's 4.5C, so their estimates don't really tell us much at this point. Add to that the fact that the observed temperature trends have been way at the bottom of what most of the models predict, and I don't think it's a stretch to say that alarmists like you have been seriously overestimating the dangers here.

But that wasn't the original point of the post. The point is that you cannot replicate or test the results in most of the current climate papers, other than to wait 50 years. We've waiting around 15 years since the initial predictions, though, and the initial ones weren't very good.

Many of those papers do lead to predictions which can be tested. Witness the Higgs particle prediction and later verification.

It's dangerous to make a broad statement, but in general I would say that if you don't have a verifiable/falsifiable theory, you're dealing with philosophy and not science. Both are valid endeavors, but we shouldn't mix them up.

I would think it is their nightmare instead. I've never seen a homeopathy result verified.

If you would be so kind as to replicate the catastrophic prediction results -- oh, wait, those can't be tested?

I trust the results that can be verified. Add co2, heat increases. I don't trust the out-of-your-ass guesses on co2 sensitivity, nor the maybe-it-is thinking linking every bit of bad weather to AGW.

Oh, I have no problem imagining such a future, and I would love it. We're just not there today. Today, if people stop working en masse, then billions starve, don't get medical care, die of contaminated water, etc. You know, like many unfortunate areas on Earth today.

Once we have completely automated (and self-maintaining) farms and distribution channels, and home building / maintenance, and water treatment, and others -- I'm right there with you. I don't want people to have to work if they don't feel like it. I'm sure that too much leisure time will cause plenty of problems, but that's technology for you; it's always two or three steps forward and one back. We'll solve the 'too much leisure time' problem, just as we solved the 'out of work buggy whip manufacturer' problem and we're working on solving the problems caused by instant global communications and industrialization.

But we're still a ways off, and we'll never get there if idealists like you keep trying to take the engine apart while we're riding up the hill in the car.

The difference is if EVERYONE stops working, the air will still be there and the food will not.

If by "mainframe" you mean, "it's the 1980s and I use the term 'mainframe' for any vague computer concept I don't understand," then, sure. :)

I assume you don't use the cell phone or PSTN networks for anything personal, either?

Sorry, do you think key loggers are impossible on Linux or something?