You are talking about one small vein of climate science -- and creating and testing models is actually science. It's part of "signal processing". I know you will get distracted by that last comment. So again, and speaking very, very, slowly. Modeling is a tiny part of climate science, and the AGW hypothesis does not depend on it in the slightest. See here and here.

The political argument is only choking on its own blood within conservative circles in the USA, Australia, and Canada -- with the later two making some discernible progress. The GOP is not equal to the entire world.

No amount of sound argumentation will help you phantom, because, as we both know, you are only interested in tickling your own motivated reasoning. It doesn't matter that the AGW theory doesn't rely on models. It doesn't matter surface temperature has next to nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter that 2014 was warmer than 1998, when there was no El Nino in 2014, and a record El Nino in 1998.

What matters is that you are right, and you are going to prove it, no matter what.

Do you know what a mimophant is? Either Mann is one, or his detractors are. Hint, his detractors came after him -- personally -- and now they are playing the victim if he so much as protests, let alone follow sound legal council over witch-hunts.

Well, you probably know too much about the "science" to actually understand one of Mann's papers -- so it is really pitched at your level.

And perhaps a combination of Ralph Nadar, and the US Supreme Court had something to do with Al Gore losing as well. I sure miss W. though. I time when the economy boomed, deficits came down, and the US garnered the world's respect.

They don't see it as pollution, but an assault on the very moral fabric of their being. If they are wrong about AGW, so then think about the consequences!!! TEH SOCIALISM!!! And so the cogs turn in the mind of the ideologue who, with no trace of irony sees themselves as balanced, nuanced and reasonable. Hence all the projection and gnashing at teeth.

It only takes a microsecond for a claim to be generated, and another microsecond of the ideologue to convince themselves it is true based on its pleasant chime. It takes forever to disprove the claim because, as the Japanese say, he who doesn't listen cannot hear. Thus it is, has been, and always will be. I'm convinced that the name "homo sapian" is a failed attempt at irony.

You probably believe that renewables can never compete with carbon energy on price alone -- unsubsidized. The simple truth is that after subsidies are removed, only gas can compete with renewables. Gas wins handily, for now. The main obstacle for renewables in that the USA needs more high voltage capacity -- blocked by the nimby crowd -- to move electricty across the country. With more high voltage power lines, it would quickly start to cost more to mine and ship coal to existing coal power plants than build wind power. Solar is close behind, and the prices are coming down fast.

Now it is not true that the above pricing estimates are purely subsidy free. Coal, oil and natural gas are still given huge subsidies in the calculations: private profits, socialized losses. You see, coal/oil/gas does not pay for the significant health burdens, or the trillions in wars. And that is leaving aside using the atmosphere as a free waste tip.

If your main concern about climate change action is "ruining the economy", then pull your head out of partisan news sources, and go look at the actual figures that businesses and governments use to make decisions. Most economists believe that climate action costs are negligible, but that not doing anything will cost a lot -- starting with all the beachfront property on the East coast, which will have moved in land within 100 years.

Haha! He said he couldn't breath like six times before being murdered by the cop choking him. Did you not watch the tape? Did it cause a mental syntax error or something?

Have you ever seen police breaking cameras? What would you do if someone broke your camera? Call the police?

Yeah, the police feel they are under assault. Yet there is almost a live-stream of police abusing the moral privilege they are given, even though the job is far safer than many other jobs. I've seen a good friend enter the police, and adopt the cultural talking points. There are real systemic problems with how police do their jobs, and how interrogations and prosecutions are done -- and at no point do police seem willing to accept any criticism or feedback at all. If there is video evidence, then the problem is that there is video evidence.

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.)