You're right, clearly we need more women in prison.

In all seriousness, I wouldn't expect that. Assume for the sake of argument that IQ tests are actually reasonable proxies for raw intelligence. As I understand it, the means are roughly the same but men have a larger standard deviation. Which means if you are studying a field only suitable for high IQ's, you will have more men than women.

The accuracy of IQ tests is questionable, but I think there is some truth to distributions being different between the sexes. It fits with the available evidence. However, it's always a mistake to judge an individual by the group they happen to be in rather than their individual observable characteristics.

Citation needed. There is ZERO evidence that Mao was a net positive. The only people who think otherwise are ideologues who believe that communism is inherently good and benevolent regardless of it's actual effects, and despite the totalitarianism inherent in it's basic definition. "To each according to his need, from each according to his ability" has no room whatsoever for freedom of choice.

Zimmerman was found not guilty based on basic self defense, NOT stand your ground laws.

I'm not in support of using the minority report. I would quibble about basically flat and could argue that some of the slopes qualify, but thanks for pointing out the data link to get the slope of the line.

I think the more likely issue is just a matter of bias, not deliberate malfeasance. It's really hard to see errors in something when you get the results you expect. For TOBS adjustments for USHCN in particular, a mathematical artifact from the way they try to correct for it seemed more likely. That's based solely on my intuition as a mathematician though. Since we know they have engaged in deliberate efforts to conceal disconfirming evidence, and to punish journals for publishing papers whose conclusions they didn't like, I don't consider malfeasance completely implausible.

It's interesting to just plot the trendline of various sets. I especially find it interesting when you do so from the year I suggested previously, 2002.

CRU Global Average is how they described in on their page. Going by the link, it was HADCRUT3. Which shoes only .01C over the period. They didnt specifiy variance adjusted or not, and their choice of endpoints were on specific months, so i'm going to go with some cherry picking there as well.

I meant to include this in my previous line. The way NOAA wrote that note in 2008 did not exclude peak to trough periods of 15 years or longer. It's a reasonable exclusion to make though, so I decline to hold that against them.

Tolerance does not equal approval. The fact that you can still do your job is irrelevant. They are under no obligation to hire you just because you are qualified, and there is a good reason to suspect that someone who is philosophically opposed to government will not do the best job they can for the government even if they are theoretically capable of doing so. Now, if you had already been hired and had a good track record, you would have a good argument against being fired.

After playing with the data for a bit, I found one set of data that has a downward trend. The RSS MSU lower trop global mean. Starting in 1999, which is a more reasonable year, it shift to a slight upward trend. Unfortunately your site doesn't give a value for the slope. Eyeballing it, 2002 or thereabouts is a better start, which drops them below the 15 year cutoff, except the line from NOAA didn't exclude peak to trough periods.

Being highly set dependent is suspicious, but the on the other side the adjusments made to surface station data are suspicious in nature based on my own checking. Specifically, averaging all adjustments for the GHCN after the flap about the Darwin station, I found a definite warming linear trend in the adjustments. The USHCN had a significant quadratic trend in adjustments, such that 80% or more of the warming trend in the data was created by the adjustments.

They were using global coverage. CRU Global average in the downward trend, and UAH in the one that had a very slight upward trend (.0004 per year). I can't see the slope of the trendline on that site you gave, but visually it's the same. Calling that basically flat is defensible, assuming reasonable error bars.

They aren't required to approve of people who want to throw them out, and hiring would be a sign of approval.

Joseph Stack was not affiliated with the tea party according. His manifesto was pro communist and anti capitalist. Basically a lone nut whose politics were left wing if anything.

The existence of an outlier in noisy data is NOT THE SAME THING as ending a trend. The trendline for the last 15 years is flat. http://cosmoscon.com/2013/03/1... gives some pictures so I don't have to.

Bullshit. I cited a 2008 article because they named a period that would indicate the models were dead.

A plateau is still a hiatus in growth. Your point is nonsense.

It is outside the 95% confidence interval of existing models, according to NOAA back in 2008.

Reading your link, their claim amounts to adding a new correction term to bring them in sync (that's what the new green line and range on the graph is). Which means they need another couple of decades to test the new modified models to see if they are sufficiently accurate. "We're right because we can add a correction term to cover this divergence that we didn't predict before" is entirely unconvincing. I find it highly suspicious that they chose to claim 2001 as the start, which doesn't match the date anyone else is using for the start of the current pause, 1999.

It's completely fair to point out when someone tries to claim A is not equal to A', where A' is just a different wording of the same thing. I didn't say anything about whether the warming has actually stopped or slowed, only pointed out that he was trying to claim a distinction without a difference.

I'm sorry, nothing you said was actually responsive to my point. The models didn't make any claims about ocean temperatures increasing. They specifically predicted surface temperatures continuing to increase. They were wrong in a single unified direction. Ocean warming is an attempt to explain why they were wrong in a single direction, but that doesn't make the models actually right. It's not just that they were wrong, but the consistency in the nature of their error. Since those predictions are the basis of the fears of catastrophic warming, their fears were based on an error. I stand by "overstated" but I would be willing to walk back "vastly" if ocean warming holds up as an explanation.

"Even the much-hyped hiatus is a hiatus in growth of the anomaly, not a cessation of warming." Read that again and think about what the words actually mean.
warming: increase in temperature
anomaly: difference in average temperature from a defined period (that's how the word is generally used in climate science)

A hiatus in growth of the anomaly really does mean a cessation of warming. It make pick up again later.