I'm sorry that you are getting tired of this, but in this case you can rejoice! Because nowhere in the article did they state such an absurd line.

There is no point making up quotes to get offended by when you could just comment on the actual story at hand. Your entire post has absolutely nothing to do with measuring the gravitational changes of melting ice.

Does the expansion of sea ice mean that the total volume of sea and land ice has gone up? Does it even mean that the volume of sea ice has gone up or is it just being spread thin?

You have cherry-picked a single variable that has gone up and ignored the bigger picture, and then made the outrageous claim that it is the people who actually measure the total ice that are spreading false propaganda.

Answer one question: has the volume of land ice gone up or down? If the answer is down, why is it so unimportant for you to mention this inconvenient fact?

On second thoughts, we can ask an even easier question. Has the total volume of ice gone up or down? According to the article, the gravitational measurements show that it has gone down. Why are you in complete denial of this FACT?

The problem is that this is not intended or presented as a proof of climate change. It is merely measuring recent gravitational changes showing the affect of the reduction in ice. The article does pre-suppose that any melting of ice would be the result of climate change. You could certainly argue against that assumption.

But what you can't argue against is the fact that the ice is melting at all, although that doesn't stop some people here from cherry-picking one particular type of ice (sea ice), saying that it has expanded as if that is the complete argument against the total ice loss.

That is correct, but it is not the definition that you used. From the dictionary:

care (noun)

1. a state of mind in which one is troubled; worry, anxiety, or concern: He was never free from care.

By using this definition, it is not possible to go negative.

Homefront was originally published by THQ. Crytek just bought the IP after THQ went under. It can hardly be cited as a symptom of problems at the company (apart from the decision to buy it in the first place rather than just make their own similar game).

There are plenty of people who liked the original Crysis (at least the first two thirds of it). I'm one of them. It has overwhelmingly positive user ratings on Metacritic. The sequels were less well received.

That last part is not true. This reply was made with Javascript disabled. Just go into the options and switch to "Classic Discussion System (D1)". The only part that requires scripting is if you want to look at the individual mods by clicking on the message score. The rest (including performing moderations) work fine.

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.