Who said anything about scientific statements? This was about the Kyoto agreements and the like.

Well, it would also be to prove you right. Remember, it was you who brought up the issue of looking "into any data that might support (or discount) it."

I am not giving that impression, but just to be clear I categorically state that any study not matching current global warming theories is to be accepted with the same cautious scepticism as any paper that conveniently matches the theories. This is why we need to have lots of studies to act as checks and balances.

I find that it is actually quite satisfying to point out the mistakes in a study which arrives at the same conclusion I have, because I know that I am being even handed and not guided by any bias.

Scientific findings that are contrary to existing theories or even your own beliefs should not be feared, but instead should be a source of excitement as it means that we are collectively fine-tuning our knowledge of the universe. It also generates a lot more activity in the scientific community.

As for my use of the word denialist, I stand by it even though I should use the correct term denier. The only people to bring up any negative connotations are the denialists themselves as they attempt to sound more reasonable and open minded. But why? It can't be because it sounds like holocaust deniers because I didn't use that term - I said denialist. I have no problem with true sceptics. The entire scientific principle is to be sceptical of everything and to test each other's works. If you have questions about the science then it is quite reasonable to ask them. But denialists are those who belittle scientists (they are only in it for the money) or science itself (it's a religion), and when provided with answers to their questions just keep asking the same questions again or instantly change to a different topic. A sceptic will have an open mind, while a denialist will never change their mind and will always disbelieve global warming despite all evidence presented.

I have seen someone say here on /. "I'm not a denier, I just deny climate change". It's funny that people only have problems with the noun and not the verb.

The problem is that it is almost impossible to prove that nobody thinks that signing an agreement is all that needs to be done, because to do so I would have to provide statements from every single one of those people.

However, you can disprove me in an instant by showing a single statement where someone makes such a daft claim. The one link that you did provide did not show this, as it discussed the further actions that were required beyond just making an agreement. It really is a demonstration of my claim.

Once again, this is an irrelevant argument designed to confuse the issue without having to actually make a claim that needs defending. It is the perfect strategy for the denialist movement. It can be stated in a single sentence, and people think that it is funny to do so. It is the same technique that advertisers use to create brand awareness. But have no doubt that it is a cynical ploy to capture people's imagination when facts can't be used.

The reason why there are multiple names for this is that the average person doesn't understand the difference between global warming and local warming. It if is a cold winter then they think that the globe must be cooler, when it may just be a symptom of a more active climate moving air from the cooler parts of the world to where they are.

It is not that warming was the wrong word to use, as you claim. Neither is the word change, because if it is warming then it must be changing. Climate disruption is not a common term for this, I don't think that it will catch on because it is stupid.

Damn it, I forgot to add the line to my post that your linked article wasn't proof of your claim because it actually did go on to state what needed to be done to tackle the problem. It was not simply a case of "sign the agreement and that's it".

Well you are the one who made the original claim without any evidence, so surely you should judge your own post in the same way. Why not produce a link where someone says that signing an agreement is all that needs to be done to fix climate change. I am happy to be proven wrong.

That assumes that the politicians have stated that this problem can be solved with one action (in this case the signing of an agreement). It may be that they know that an international agreement must occur as a first step in a long process that requires the various countries keep a dialogue going.

Ah yes, the old "they made a new name, therefore it must be wrong" argument (as if that makes any difference). I wonder why the same people who complain about this don't also come out to question why the denialists now claim that the warming has stopped since 1998 when they used to say that the climate had been cooling since that date. That change of wording seems to have gone unnoticed, and yet it is very telling that the original statement was incorrect and that the climate is still getting warmer.

I'm sure that in years to come when the records continue to be broken with higher temperatures that the "proof" that global warming is wrong will be conveniently forgotten, as those self-proclaimed sceptics will find some other tiny detail to use to justify their desire to postpone any action regarding the climate as long as possible.

The GMO example is probably the best one so far. It is a claim that does go against most of the science, and I imagine is more likely to be a partisan argument. I doubt that even a large minority of Democrats would ever state this though, so in that respect it is not the perfect example.

I still think that the Republican/GW example is the best one, easily beating the Democrat/GMO and Republican/evolution choices. The implication that there is some agenda in selecting it is unwarranted.

I don't think that those examples are anywhere near as apt as the global warming one. For one, these do not have such overwhelming scientific backing. Secondly, they are not as often quoted by the politicians.

Finally, they are overly-specific claims. The "more guns, less crime" claim misleads the gun control aims in that they are attempting to reduce the gun-related murders. Nobody claims that scepticism is a bad thing, but denialism dressed up as scepticism is. And all economies can fail, but few politicians advocate such a simplistic economy.

Are you seriously saying that every single scientific study that matches the Global Warming theory has had their numbers fudged? How do you know? If you are given any random article from a journal, can you point to the data that has been altered to fit the theory?

If not, the perhaps the alleged fudging isn't as blatant - or as widespread - as you suggest. It could be that it is only obvious that the data is bunk if you come at it from the assumption that all the global warming theories are false; in which case you are obviously a perfect match for what this story is all about.

What is its opposite to which you refer? If you are looking for an example of people disbelieving science when it conflicts with their own religious or political views, what is the scientific doctrine that Democrats typically reject?

Perhaps this is another demonstration of the media's left wing bias that does not stand up to scrutiny.

The same thing happened in the Windows world. Windows 7 was faster than Vista, and Windows 8 was faster than Windows 7. Each new version got better with their use of resources, although the system requirements remained the same for the three versions (1 GHz CPU, 1GB RAM for 32bit, 2GB for 64bit) except for hard drive use with went up by 1GB per release.

When I first tried the beta of Windows 8, the only computer that I had spare was a 2GHZ Celeron with 1GB RAM and a slow hard drive (I think that it was from 2006). It was slow to boot, but once loaded I was astounded how well it worked. I wouldn't use it for day-to-day operations, but it wasn't too far out of the ball park for speed. It didn't stop me hating the user interface (and I still do), but the actual performance did surprise me having been used to the idea (like you were) that each version in the past had got slower and slower.

That is because it is simply wrong. Apple is not listed as a member of the Power Matters Alliance, which is the competing standard of wireless power that Starbucks used. Both Starbucks and Powermat are represented on the board of directors for the alliance, so it is unsurprising which technology they chose for their coffee shops.

First of all, this isn't SteamOS we are talking about, it is Windows. Secondly, I'm not suggesting that you can't load non-Steam games. But you won't be able to do it sitting on your couch holding your controller. Buying and playing Steam games on a Steam box will be much, much easier.

There are enough people on Windows computers who refuse to buy games that they can't load from the Steam client (and complain bitterly when games are offered on other services). Just imagine how receptive buyers of something called a Steam box will be to having to exit from Steam's Big Picture mode to run another launcher.

So while it might not be a technical locking to Steam, it will be a practical one.