It's amazing how replete with projection "skepticism" is. You probably don't even know what that means, and almost certainly couldn't process it if you did.

Yeah, I think that "skeptic" groups specifically target slashdot as a way to skew the conversation in their favor. "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." -- Russell

The deal is actually the opposite. America doesn't really need to do much to meet Obama's target. The natural market-driven growth of renewables will do it, so long as the GOP doesn't play pick the winners and losers by slapping regulations. (*cough* Kansas *cough*). It may well cost the US consumer $0. China, on the other hand, is deploying huge amounts of new energy, and will fundamentally need to shift their plan in order to have emissions peak in 2030. But they want to do it anyway, since -- pollution, and they will be at the bleeding edge of renewables technology with will own carbon by 2030. Heck, wind is already price parity with coal, and solar is dropping fast. See Levelized cost of electricity by source. And I say all of this knowing that you cannot understand it, because you are a "skeptic" with the "truth". (Somehow not a contradiction -- but that's human nature for you.)

If only the sun's output showed a trend. Gee, a bunch of ideologues with ties to industry providing you with the "truth" of climate change, eh? Sad.

A single year does not a trend make. It's a decadal trend. Average the temperatures on a decadal basis, and you will see that there was never an abatement from warming. Furthermore, most of the heat (90+%) goes into the oceans, which makes them rise (because they expand) and the signal is much less noisy. No abatement there either. And besides, 1998 wasn't the hottest year on record -- that's is an ambiguous statement -- and it was hot because of a record El Nino. The next record El Nino will blast 1998 to bits, unless there is some mitigating circumstance such as huge volcanic eruptions in the same year. And I say all of this fully aware that you cannot possibly understand it -- being a "skeptic" and all.

Look up cherry-pick in the skeptics guide to science, 'cause that's just what you did on a decadal trend.

Without. See levelized cost of electricity by source for more information. The formulas are complicated (because the world is complicated) so do some reading to figure out what is going on with them. If you have been watching these numbers for a few years -- as I have -- fossil fuels are in big trouble. They're already crying to the government to bail them out. It won't be long until box stores, data centers and factories switch. I think the big change-over will come around 2020. Obama's deal with China was really pretty cheap on his part. The chinese will actually have to do some work.

At the very least: Intro to algorithms

He didn't say "immediate evacuation". Learn to read. At some stage in the future -- our children's future -- there will be ocean where Miami is. So there will be a permanent evacuation. Probably after some storm surge or king tide. Dummy.

How is that tinfoil hat rant insightful?

Ending the war on drugs would be a good step towards breaking down the honour culture that causes so many problems for some African Americans. Don't forget that this happens because of institutionalized incentive structures.

Just because you believe it doesn't mean that it is true. Even professional economists can't agree on such a simple statement, since the details are so complex. But whatever floats your boat Mr Dunning Kruger.

Then you're not using the correctly. If you understand how to design functional software (i.e., using closures), then you end up with far less code, and much better separation of concerns. Had to spend some time in lisp/scheme to really get it.

Here is the working link for: No scientists are not ignoring increase in sea ice.

This article is just another PRATT. No scientists are not ignoring the increase in sea ice. I think the parent comment reflects the depth of AGW opposition.