Why, exactly, would you consider the papers that don't talk about a topic when considering whether there is a consensus of support for that topic or not? If you were seeking to see if a dog would make a good pet, how many books about orangutans would you read? Also, the Cook paper also clearly states what percentage of the papers took a position on climate change (32.6%) in the abstract.

According to your logic, we can lower the support level for any topic by simply including more papers that don't take a position on the topic. It doesn't even have to be climate change. Why not gravity, the round-earth hypothesis, or religion. Hey, if we include enough irrelevant papers we can get the consensus level down to 0.0001% for anything.

Following methodology of Legates (geographer), Soon (astrophysicist), Briggs (statistician), Monckton (public speaker), I can prove that gravity is a lie since only 0.01% of papers in the category of science specifically affirm that the force is real and affecting us. That's what they did to get only a 0.3% endorsement of the consensus view of climate change, they included papers that have nothing to do with global climate change to dilute the results. The Cook paper found that 97% of the papers that took a position favoured the consensus view.

Because, as we all know, an ideologically Libertarian political "think tank" funded by gas and coal owners is clearly the most reliable source of information on the effects of pollution released by the gas and coal industries and whether that pollution requires government intervention. There is absolutely no bias, no politics and no conflict of interest there.

Frankly, it seems par for the course that you rarely understand what you are reading when it concerns climate change.

See this? This is why you come off as a lunatic nutjob with a paranoid obsession about feminists.

You have repeatedly lied and distorted the truth, and when confronted with your paranoid delusional twisting of facts, you focus on one tiny aspect of the commentary so you can ignore the substance of the argument. It is not me who is lying here, friend. It is you. Frankly, it looks like you need serious psychiatric help. Go get some.

It is if the person you're pointing out is not a hate-monger, isn't it?

You're like that guy who denounced Tinky-Winky for being gay. Delusional and convinced of your righteous ways.

Sure I am. Go ahead and tell yourself whatever it takes to justify your actions and to dismiss any and all criticism.

The no picture, no name, not an aged account is as indicative of harassment as it is of fraud. The things that were written were sufficent to land the writer in jail. Presuming the writer is actually harassing her, and smart enough to realize that he or she is breaking the law, and doesn't want to go to jail, then a new "burner" account would probably be their best choice.

He can't, the stuff he claims is false, and he's referring to the Lego video part 2 on the site linked from the article description. I watched the video and can recognize enough of the real video through his darkly twisted lense.

I watched that video because you mentioned it and you appear to have failed to understand the central point. It's not "commercials depicting fathers playing with their sons are bad", it's only having "commercials depicting fathers playing with their sons" alienates girls from playing with Lego by emphasizing that it is a "boy" toy. Additionally, it not "that products should not depict testosterone inspired activity", it's that Lego shifted their commericals from creative activity which has larger cross-gender appeal to boy-centered play themes like blowing stuff up, which again, alienates girls from playing with Lego because that type of play is generally les appealing to girls. In both cases, it is not the advertising that is the problem, it's the fact that there is no counterbalancing advertising. There are no mother and son, father and daughter or mother and daughter commericals, and there is no marketing focus on play that appeals to be both boys and girls or focus on play that specifically apeals to girls. She is not critcising the toy or even the company really, except that she is pointing out that for two decades, they made marketing campaigns aimed at boys and only boys.

And for that, you appear to believe that she and her family deserve to be threatened with rape, torture and execution...

Indeed, it was Ayn Rand who viewed labor as something only a very small number of heroic, good-looking, and rich people wanted to do. Her theory was that the rest of humanity needs to be threatened with starvation or they would only steal from their betters.

Actually, no. You're falling for the false-consensus effect. There are a whole lot of different "denier" opinions, but yours is not one of them. You are making false cause with people who actually think that you're a deluded global warming apologist. The people who are correctly labelled as deniers are those who actually deny that global warming is happening. Generally, they deny that the greenhouse effect exists, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or they deny that man is producing significant amounts of CO2.

The people, like you, who claim that the models are overstating future warming and that unchecked global warming won't dangerous are luke-warmers, not deniers.

Let me explain a bit here. Water vapor is effectively constantly at saturation in the atmosphere, evaporation and precipitation keep it relatively well balanced. The major factor that determines how much water vapor is in the atmosphere is temperature. So, it's a feedback effect, water vapor amplifies the warming caused by other factors such as CO2 and Milankovitch cycles. Additionally, CO2 gets the lion's share of attention because it's a long lasting gas and we produce a lot of it. It will likely take centuries for CO2 levels to fall back to pre-industrial levels even if we cut emissions to zero right now. Other, more potent gases, tend to have half-lifes that are measured in years instead of decades or centuries and we produce orders of magnitude smallers amounts of them. So while CO2 is a relatively weak greenhouse gas, we produce a lot of it and some of the other gases, like water vapor, amplify it's effect.

There's this thing called the internet. Perhaps, you've heard of it? It would be quite easy for all these supposed scientists who supposedly are being censored to form their own website (or journal even) and publish the papers that are supposedly being censored.

Of course, that actually has been attempted a couple of times, but on every occurence that I know of, it turned out the papers were rejected because the paper was fundamentally flawed, not because of the claimed political oppression. It turns out scientific journals want you to use facts, logic, and math. Who knew, right?

It's so much easier to claim that you're being oppressed than to admit you wasted months because you made some basic math errors.

You've written multiple long-winded posts about how the Greenhouse Effect doesn't exist. Are you recanting those statements?

If so, then we should congratulate you and you win this one, if not, then's he right and you lose.

There is no formal definition of what CAGW is, you could even stick to one definition for a single sentence, you used two very different examples of what it supposedly means. All in all, it's useful rhetorical trickery used to make sure you never have to deal honestly with people you disagree with. You always just one goalpost shift away from continuing the argument.

Dealing with AGW may, in fact, be the "greatest moral challenge of our time" but that has nothing to do with your argument. It's a moral question of doing nothing now so we benefit at the cost of our inheritors, or take minor inconvenient actions now and pass the savings on to those who come after us. The cost of dealing with AGW adaptation and mitigation rises the more we delay on taking action. In addition, the atmosphere is a global commons, and dumping CO2 into it is a mostly invisible action. Can the world work together to achieve a universally beneficial goal when it's so easy to cheat the system?

You are free of course to disagree with that assessment, but my simply point is that phrase "greatest moral challenge of our time" does not need to imply that there a catastrophe lurking around the corner, perhaps you have confused it with "greatest mortal challenge of our time" which would indeed imply an incoming catastrophe.

On the other hand "no jobs on a dead planet" is a union slogan, and slogans are often hyperbolic. It is a catchy phrase that clearly communicates the point that job concerns and environmental concerns are not mutually exclusive. It is possible that I am projecting my own views onto such groups, but until you mentioned it, I had never heard that particular slogan before.

I have not changed or abandoned any of my previous arguments. It is statistical quackery, while atmospheric temperatures are rising slower than projected, those slower periods are common and expected. The quackery is in pretending that this is new and unprecedented and in choosing start and end dates to exaggerate the length of the period. Furthermore, the escalator graph clearly shows how if you followed the behaviour of these self-proclaimed skeptics you could always claim we are in a slow warming, no warming or cooling trend even while the temperature steadily rises. This is expected because the data is noisy and not monotonic. In every non-record year there is a previous higher record year, the slope from that year to any year except the next record setting year will always be below 0. This is simple mathematics and it is critically important to understanding how you are being manipulated. The current "no warming" rhetoric which you occasionally use is no different from the obviously incorrect use that could have been applied to any similar period in the past. Maybe you haven't been following my arguments as closely as you think you have?

Yes.

Ad hominem, don't attack the site, attack the argument. In this case they provided a link to the paper and summarised the findings, you didn't bother to indicate what you found "untrustworthy about that.

Just counting them isn't, but you can do some robust analysis based on frequency and distribution with a sufficiently large time period. For example, in a stable climate you would expect the frequency of extreme events to drop off and for them to be roughly evenly distributed towards warm and cold events. If your results differ significantly from that null hypothesis it indicates that the climate is not stable. That type of analysis can be informative.

Sure, a new daily maximum record isn't good evidence of global warming, but I can see how this argument relates to anything I actually wrote. I was still talking about the "pause" rhetoric and why it's statistical quackery. Specifically, if you choose the last record high as the starting point for a slope you can always choose a recent year where you can show the slope is negative or close to zero. It's deliberately misleading and very common among self-proclaimed skeptics.