Consider the way Anthony Watts was savaged for blatant idiocy by Media Matters in Climate Skeptic Proves Conclusively That He Knows How To Waste Time, Money, his opinion doesn't carry much weight. If you're going to tell us we should listen to someone, at least find somebody with more chops than this "Hey, they used video editing in a video!" moron.

Honestly, reading that made my opinion of Anthony Watts fall to a new low. It's really pathetic when someone claims "Fraud!" because video editing was used to make the thermometer readings actually legible.

Given the recent history of the Conservative Party of Canada and it's various flunkies it's probably safer to draw the opposite conclusion, namely that Harper clearly intends to abuse this to persecute his political enemies. After all, his political flunkies have already declared that environmentalists are essentially the same as terrorists on more than one occasion.

That's a new one, I hadn't read that lie before. This one isn't even believable at first glance. the hockey strick graph was a multi-proxy graph so it can't be based on one tree because if it was, it would be a single proxy graph. Furthermore there are now 14 (or more) different reconstructions that confirm the shape and conclusions of the first hockey stick graph using different methods and different proxies.

When you're going to lie to people, at least try to make it believable, ok?

I'm not attacking your character, because you really do believe in a paranoid fantasy. Also, I'm not trying to associate you with anti-vaxxers, you do that with your words and your behaviour.

The primary problem with what you've written is that none of it is true. If climate change research is based on "bad science" it should be trivial to discredit it, but it's not. Every time someone show some so-called "bad science" in climate change, it turns out they've greatly exaggerated what they've found. The real criticism of the hockey stick graph, for example, put a practically unnoticeable bump in the "handle" part of the graph, yet the statistician who found the error continues to claim he "disproved" the graph because he found that there was a better statistical regression method that should have been used instead that had no real impact on the graph on the conclusion drawn from it.

It's like trying to prove in a court of law that you shouldn't get a speeding ticket because you were going 100 mph over the speed limit, because in reality you were only doing 99.7 mph over the speed limit. Inconsequential.

You seem to have mistaken pity for fear. I think you're delusional. You think that thousands of scientists have been studying a subject for 30 years and yet not one of them have realized the truth that you know without ever having studied it at all. You're a text book case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Contrary to what you believe, even the so-called skeptical scientists admit that global warming is true, that it's happening and that's it's man-made. They mostly disagree on how fast it will progress but personally, I don't think the evidence even supports their positions on that issue. They clutch at faint hopes (clouds or other mysterious negative feedbacks that have yet to be discovered) that things will not be as bad they likely will be. They cling to these hopes for many different reasons, such as money, faith, or publicity, but as the evidence accumulates the fringe theories are slowly being disproved one after another.

Pull your head out of your ass and you could enjoy the air too.

So why with a Republican President (Bush) and a Republican Majority in Congress and the Senate, did government scientists still find that AGW was real?

To an outside observer there isn't much difference between you two. Both groups seem to believe that an evil cabal of scientists is trying to trick them. Why should we can which paranoid delusion you believe in?

To be fair and accurate, under the "novel" approach of counting every ballot accurately, Al Gore would have won. It certainly appears that the majority of the supreme court deliberately ran out the clock to allow their favoured candidate to the win the election by denying one of the basic tenets of most democratic voting systems: when the totals are close you recount the ballots to make sure the count is correct.

So it's actually the opposite of the situation you imagine, the voters actually awarded Al Gore the presidency but the supreme court appears to have deliberately thwarted the will of the electorate.

A better system might be to give you some type of "unlimited" rating system where you could rate other users (maybe as simple as Slashdot's friend/neutral/foe system, maybe more complicated), and to make those ratings shareable so that other people could add your ratings to their own, then anything from users below a certain threshold would be blocked (possibly also per-user configurable). This would allow different communities to band together to mass block the people they don't like (because of trolling, or whatever) without globally silencing anyone.

That's an incredibly moronic thing to say. This is about how Twitter can prevent people from doing that very thing. They don't like the fact that trolls are driving other users away. Particularly when it's the good users who post things other people want to read. Without those users, twitter literally has nothing but trolls and terrorists. So the very last thing they want is for people to "stop using it". Every time someone does it costs Twitter some of their future profits.

No, he's what the Republicans used to be, you know, before they went insane.

It's important to understand that the primary determinant of the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is temperature, which means that other GHG gases impact the amount of water vapour and thus amplify their own effect. That's why water vapour doesn't get much consideration: it has a short cycle, it acts primarily as a feedback system, and have no feasible ways to directly increase or decrease it, unlike the other GHGs like CO2 and methane.

From what the article said, they were voting on whether to attach the ammendments to the bill.

I guess, they should have named it anthropogenically inverted global climate change, then. The natural trend is about -0.03C degrees C per century, when you add in the anthropogenic impact the current trend is around +2.00 degrees C per century.

If you frame it right, everything sounds like religion.