Why "nope"? Stackexchange seems like a great (crowdsourced) medium for exactly this. Already a patent application has been struck down thanks to prior art discovered via that site.

You mean something like patents.stackexchange.com?

Both vids are by the same guy.

Where does he say that? He says at 4:12: "But in fact, Jones was talking about something completely different [than the decline in the global temperature]: the apparent decline in temperatures shown by tree ring data since the 1950s." He is exactly stating that "hide the decline" has something to do with tree rings.

Yes, exactly as potholer says at 4:27: "The argument is whether tree rings should be used when reconstructing pre-industrial climates." You make this out to be something sneaky and hidden from public, especially combined with your closing statement:

However, at least in this case, you are simply wrong. It's been openly discussed since at least 1998 when a paper called "Trees tell of past climates: but are they speaking less clearly today?" was published. A quote from the paper: "This is illustrated in figure 6, which shows that decadal trends in both large-scale-average [Tree-Ring Width] and [MaXimum latewood Density] increasingly diverge from the course of decadal temperature variation after about 1950 or 1960." The lead author, Keith Briffa, even works at the CRU! Clearly this was openly talked about, and before the "hide the decline" email (which was in 1999).

What else ya got?

1) It works both ways. A rise in temperature does cause increased CO2 levels. Increased CO2 levels also contribute to further rises in temperature. It is a feedback loop.
2) Yes the greenhouse effect is a bit of a misnomer. It is a different effect than what causes greenhouses to work. This video has an explanation.

Agreed about the alarmists. Note that it's never climate scientists who make ridiculous claims like the ones you listed. The first one was claimed by Al Gore, who is certainly not a climate scientist, while the second was Ted Turner. It is certainly a good idea to not take what they say as being scientifically valid. Even the IPCC report doesn't do any research of its own - it just takes existing research, compiles it, and makes recommendations. To really figure out what's happening you have to look at the science, which means the scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals themselves, not what media sites or public figures or the IPCC says about the science.

I, too, used to think climategate showed all those things. I read article after article about them and how it's all over for AGW, etc. However, when taken in context, those emails actually refer to something totally other than what they were made out to refer to. I highly recommend you check out this video and this one wherein potholer54 takes an in-depth and impartial look into climategate and reveals what it actually shows... as a spoiler, it doesn't reveal that there's a giant AGW conspiracy amongst all the climate scientists in the world.

Everybody is fucked up in one way or another. The great lie of society is that there is such a thing as normal. Yet this is impossible. It is each person's task - given to him by nobody other than himself - to do the best he can so as to make his way through this fucked-up-ness and figure out why it is so endemic and how he can help himself and others around him out of it. You clearly value your own life as you avoid alcohol because it would harm you. This is a good trait! Use it well. Life gets better the more you work at improving it - this is the joy of being an intelligent animal.

Yep exactly, and they would have had far more incentives to do just that if they weren't guaranteed to have extremely limited competition in any given area.

No it's an awful idea because it leads to not having competition which leads to horrible shitty-ass internet service. Why do you think Time Warner and Comcast are so universally hated?

So was that post enough to turn the tide so people started modding these down, or are the powers-that-be modding these down to make it look like that post was enough?

I agree that Beta sucks - good point.

WTF are you talking about? Beta does suck.

The Beta killed my children. It was awful. I hope it doesn't kill the rest of my children cause I actually have more but the Beta only killed a few of them.

On February 5, 2014, Slashdot announced through a javascript popup that they are starting to "move in to" the new Slashdot Beta design.

Slashdot Beta is a trend-following attempt to give Slashdot a fresh look, an approach that has led to less space for text and an abandonment of the traditional Slashdot look. Much worse than that, Slashdot Beta fundamentally breaks the classic Slashdot discussion and moderation system.

If you haven't seen Slashdot Beta already, open this [slashdot.org] in a new tab. After seeing that, click here [slashdot.org] to return to classic Slashdot.

I propose that we boycott stories and only discuss the abomination that is Slashdot Beta until Dice abandons the project.

Moderators - only spend mod points on comments that discuss Beta
Commentors - only discuss Beta

Keep this up for a few days and we may finally get the PHBs attention.

On February 5, 2014, Slashdot announced through a javascript popup that they are starting to "move in to" the new Slashdot Beta design.

Slashdot Beta is a trend-following attempt to give Slashdot a fresh look, an approach that has led to less space for text and an abandonment of the traditional Slashdot look. Much worse than that, Slashdot Beta fundamentally breaks the classic Slashdot discussion and moderation system.

If you haven't seen Slashdot Beta already, open this [slashdot.org] in a new tab. After seeing that, click here [slashdot.org] to return to classic Slashdot.

I propose that we boycott stories and only discuss the abomination that is Slashdot Beta until Dice abandons the project.

Moderators - only spend mod points on comments that discuss Beta
Commentors - only discuss Beta

Keep this up for a few days and we may finally get the PHBs attention.