As far as you know? Have you bothered to look?

First off, you need to realize that there are a lot of different climate models, modeling different parts of the climate system. No one model is representative of the entire climate system, as it is too big and complex for a single statistical model -- so far. That said, there are a number of models which do very well, both in terms of hindcasting and forecasting for the specific area they were created to model. Quite a few of them are overly conservative, meaning that they under-projected the deviations due to climate change.

If you want to really understand how to interpret how the models work and what their output means, I would suggest starting here.

This is woefully inaccurate. I don't know of any models which assume only positive feedbacks (well, I guess there are a few very old models pre-1990 which might, but I don't think anyone uses or references them any longer).

Yes, the Earth's climate is a fairly stable system, HOWEVER there have been periods of rapid change which cannot be accounted for by simply considering "more CO2 = hotter". The science behind both positive and negative feedbacks in the climate system is still a bit nascent, at least in terms of determining where the "tipping points" are, but the physics behind the feedback processes is pretty well-established at this point.

I don't consider myself a "warmist"; I simply follow the science with a skeptical eye. I have yet to see anything that I would consider discounts AGW/CC wholesale, but I am always looking. In the meantime, I am going to go on the premise that it is largely correct and change my lifestyle to address it, and urge others to follow suit.

After all, if climate science turns out to be completely wrong, I won't have any remorse for creating a better world as a result.

Even without the projections, it makes sense to eliminate using otherwise human food for gas tanks. It is a stupid and immoral policy that should have never been given the green light in the first place.

It isn't, by the very definition of the word "religion".

Disagreement with a basic fact of language isn't a very good basis for an argument, respectful or not.

The key word in your assertion is "currently". There is little evidence to suggest that global T is in a long-term levelling-off trend, and plenty of evidence that it will rise significantly in the near term, just like it has repeatedly in previous periods.

To simply look at a very small window of data and infer long-term trends (or the lack thereof) from it is the epitome of cherry-picking, hence:

The Escalator

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." -- Inigo Montoya

anarchy
[an-er-kee] Show IPA
noun
1.a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy. Synonyms: lawlessness, disruption, turmoil.
3.anarchism ( def 1 ) .
4.lack of obedience to an authority; insubordination: the anarchy of his rebellious teenage years.
5.confusion and disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith. It was impossible to find the book I was looking for in the anarchy of his bookshelves. Synonyms: chaos, disruption, turbulence; license; disorganization, disintegration.

Now, you can call yourself whatever you want, but if you support any government regulation, you're not an anarchist, by definition.

I'm part of the "regulations crowd", and I most assuredly DO get it.

You point to a number of things in your propaganda which are patently false or misleading.

The first thing is that regulations are not intended to "create some magical inviolate barrier" to fraud and other shenanigans. They are designed to lessen such things, and bring them to light sooner than without. That's all that regulation can really do -- to foster an environment where such things are minimalized, even if they can't be totally eliminated.

The second thing is that the financial sector has been massively DE-regulated over the last two decades (and even farther back than that, if you want to include the removal of usury ceilings in the 70s). The prime reasons why the recent massive financial meltdown occurred aren't due to a failure of regulation, but of a failure TO regulate.

As it relates to BitCoin, REAL regulation would provide that their accounting and security methods were audited regularly, and that they maintain proper reserves of money to meet the payment demands of their clients.

While regulation wouldn't prevent the exchange from failing, it likely would have been caught sooner, and less people would have been impacted for less money.

At the very least, I would never assent to put any significant amount of money in any BitCoin exchange unless it submitted to some kind of third-party auditing and financial standards, absent real regulation. To do otherwise is simply throwing your money down a drain.

Now would you call the science on that subejct "settled"? Would it still have been "settled" if he proved himself wrong with that stunt?

The point is that science isn't ever "perfect", but at some point, it is good enough to be useful. At that point you can call it "settled". It doesn't mean that all research and understanding of the subject is complete, but, for at least some aspects of it are well enough understood to the point where further argument of them becomes fruitless.

I also think you are grossly mischaracterizing what amounts to healthy scientific skepticism of his hypothesis until he had evidence to back it up. Yes, he was right, and the research eventually supplied the needed evidence to validate his claims. That's the way science works, and should work. You can't just make a claim and expect people to accept it on your say-so alone. Up until then, the science had been "settled", just as it is now with his work, and, until the next person comes along and upsets the applecart, it is "settled".

I think the problem is in the way lay people (mis)use and/or (mis)understand scientific terms, like "theory", not with the method and practice of science itself.

Maybe I am just old-school, but I don't see the attraction to F2P games (in terms of alternate monetization methods -- not totally free games). I would much rather pay a fair (but not exorbitantly high) price up-front for a game I think I would like, or have heard about, or even played the trial version of, rather than downloading for free, and dealing with micropayments, in-game advertising, or other bullshit when I just want to relax and get a little entertainment, an escape from all that crap.

This is the model I plan to use for all my games as well, and I have no plans to use Steam in their distribution, either.

Of course, because everyone on /. is in the same timezone, and has the exact same work hours as the person reading the post!

I'd say that, by your use of the pejorative term "alarmist", you yourself have already violated your own rule #3. Let's see how you fare on the other 2.

Something which is NEVER claimed by anyone researching or participating in climate science, but for the sake of argument, ok.

Ahh, here we are. A gross violation of your first rule. You are basing your judgment of so-called "alarmists" on the worst cases you can find. I don't know of any serious climate scientist or climate change / AGW adherent who says any of these things or, if said, are taken out of context by someone to prove the opposite. Yes, there are some nutjobs who should rightly be called "alarmists", and they say some pretty outlandish and stupid things, but they are far in the minority. What they say shouldn't have any impact on the science or anyone's perception of it. They are simply noise in the signal, and are pretty easily eliminated by even a modicum of critical thinking and a little bit of research.

I hate to break it to you, but real AGW/CC climate science adherents or "climate hawks" don't take the nutjobs seriously, either. The problem is in terms of where you get your information on the subject. Politics are inserted into the equation by people with an agenda. Understand who is talking, and what their goals/motivations are for telling you the things you are hearing from them, and seek out the source of their information. If they can't or won't provide it, then only take what they say with a heavy dose of skepticism. Everything in climate science is open and accessible (more today than in the past, to be sure), and there are many sites which break down the hard science into more meaningful chunks which the lay person can consume at their leisure.

I think the damage that the "alarmists" (supposedly) have caused pales in comparison by far to what the well-monied climate contrarians have caused. We even see it in *this very article* by Spencer, who grossly violates your own Rule #2. It's easy to dismiss a nutjob statement that is very easy to source and check, like Ted Turner's noise. It is much harder to dismiss deceptions which are carefully and painstakingly constructed for the express purpose of disinformation and obscuring the facts.

So, in the end, you personally violate two of your own rules, and the people you are going to bat for violate the third. Not a very good start to a reasoned take on the subject, don't you think?

> Did he take funding from the public?

Who? Spencer and Christy? As principal researchers at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, they receive quite the plethora of public funding -- research grants from NASA, NOAA, DOE and the DOT. They ALSO get quite a few checks from private sources, including the fossil fuel industry.

> Did he hide his data and refuse FOI requests?

No, they fudge data. I mean *REALLY * fudge data. They fabricate and distort it. (In)Famously, their own UAH satellite temperature record was originally badly flawed, and they were forced to admit it and correct it.

Did he splice together separate graphs or choose outliers?

Worse, as part of their standard modus operandi, Spencer cobbled together a set of graph with disparate cherry-picked parameters to show something that doesn't exist, but fits his own worldview. Basically, fabricating evidence in support of his position/hypotheses.

> Anywhile, still waiting for someone, anyone on the Warmist side to admit that Mann was, or even could be, wrong.

Why would anyone do that? Mann hasn't engaged in *ANY* of these practices. His research and conclusions have withstood the test of time and severe scientific and public scrutiny. All challenges against him have, so far, been dismissed with prejudice (which means, in legal terms, those who challenged him had *ABSOLUTELY NOTHING* to their case when examined with the same level of critical scrutiny Mann's work has been subject to, and were summarily dismissed).

I am still waiting for someone, anyone on the Denier side to admit that they are, or even could be, wrong.

Yeah, I know; that's a long wait for a train don't come.

Heh.. had to fix your fix for me, eh? Fail much?

No, not all significant human endeavors can be substituted there, but it still pretty much makes my point for me, anyway.

So much for "fixing" it for me. :-/

Thanks, I guess.

It's not about pitting the best athletes in the world against one another in a competitive sport, it's all about money and power.

It's a triumph of the corporate spirit.

I live in the far north part of the state, and we had no issues dealing with the snow / icy conditions on the roads. We saw the front coming in, and people either didn't go in to work, or left work early. No disasters that I am aware of occurred.

What you say is a significant part of the problem, but this particular storm and the circumstances and actions of the state and local government offices made it far worse than it otherwise would have been.

First, the system was difficult to predict; the NWS only upgraded its forecast to a "warning" a few hours ahead of the morning rush hour. While, in theory, it should have been plenty enough time, the way such things get to the most people usually take more time than that.

Second, the local TV news didn't take the NWS warning to heart, with local meteorologists disagreeing with the NWS and making their own forecasts that were less severe.

Third, the state and local governments were completely asleep at the wheel. Part of it was the standard "well, if we cry wolf, and it doesn't happen, it'll cost millions of dollars in lost business/revenues/blahblahblah" (whereas, if it DOES happen, and we're not prepared for it, it will cost far more, and it did -- a typical failure of risk management demonstrated over and over again by both conservatives and AGW deniers -- usually the same people, in fact). So, they didn't take it seriously, failing to advise GDOT as well as the local news to tell people to also take it seriously.

Fourth, the weather system itself was particularly dangerous because of the prior days' weather, and the time in which the storm arrived. People don't get that it wasn't the SNOW that was the problem, but the ICE that resulted from the SNOW partially melting / getting compacted. This snow was a loose aggregate powder snow, it came down in very small flakes that you couldn't compress well in your hands into a snowball. However, when you compressed it harder, like under tires, it instantly formed into an ice sheet, which adhered to the road surface like glue.

Fifth, road preparations weren't made because of the short timeframe, not because of the lack of snow/ice road equipment and supplies. GDOT has plenty enough equipment and supplies stockpiled to handle this kind of storm, but it takes /time/ to get it deployed in advance of 1) rush hour traffic, and 2) the weather system itself. At 4AM, which would have been the absolute fastest they could have gotten started deploying salt/gravel, they would have had about 2-3 hours before the morning rush hour gridlock started and that is simply not enough time to get it done. Further, putting down salt/gravel 8 hours in advance of any precipitation would mean that the vast majority of it would have been swept clean of the majority of the road surface by traffic, so it would be almost useless by the time the snow started falling in earnest, and they'd have to do it all over again -- in the middle of the day when everyone started panicking and clogging up the roads again.

All in all, I fault the local media and the governor for this failure. I don't blame the people -- they did EXACTLY what I would expect a disorganized, uninformed, and leaderless mass of people to do in any similar emergency - panic and make bad judgment calls based on complete lack of information or coordination. So, yeah, I award the 2013 Atlanta Snowpocalypse Fail Awards to Gov Nathan Deal and WSB-TV, WXIA-TV, and most especially FOX-5 for their dismal bungling of their core roles and responsibilities. Runner-up awards go to the some of the mayors of local municipalities who also did nothing.