This talk of double standards has another point. Talk of AGW and if it is or isn't man made, if it is or isn't happening centers around a key distraction because it is the main externality of modern man. Cast doubt on carbon as an externality then you cast doubt on every other of the plethora of externalities that we just expect nature to deal with.

So put aside AGW for a while and ponder if all the industrial products and processes we have actually produce pollution as an externality and, for how long has it been creating an impact?

How much garbage does it take for a gyre to form in both our largest oceans kilometres deep, just how much trees can we cut down - all of them? How many factory ships and by-catch does it take to empty the ocean ecosystems? All of these and thousands of other human externalities exist and every single one of them has an impact. So yeah, it may not be AGW related, however it is more than likely related to some form of human externality. My point is, does it matter which human externality it belongs to if we are so mired down with inaction and analysis-paralysis to do anything about them.

Pick *any* large scale human industrial activity and ask yourself what the impact is? You don't need science to tell you that if you burst a cyanide dam (used for gold mining) and it flows into a river - everything in its path is going to die. That if you choke rivers with fertilizers and on and on and on.

Does it matter which human externality is to blame anymore?

But you are pushing it and no one is attacking you because the denialist/skeptic position is politics, not science. It's forbidding anyone questioning the orthodoxy of the coal/oil industry by positioning them in an argument to render the actual science of AGW a moot point. It's genius really, a skeptic absolves them selves of any need to present proof of their argument and can deny an proof presented - no proof is possible.

And what's the point of denialist/skeptic being right? Right about what? What alternate thesis is being presented to the thousands of articles of science presented?

The oil/coal industry is an entity that has control over the media outlets that shape our opinions and has trillions of dollars for lobbying, you think you are questioning the orthodoxy however in reality, you are just towing the line. Prove to me you aren't towing the line, show me the science to back up an alternate claim.

The only claim made is that this is what was noticed in the NOAA survey of animal migration. This is a fact that contributes to science which denialist/skeptics won't accept anyway. What is your alternate claim, show me your evidence that this isn't caused by AGW, where is your evidence to support your alternate claim?

The science of AGW challenges oil and coal industry hegemony and the science was reported right here on /. even before Al Gore got up and made it trendy to talk about. I've read so much science about AGW I can't even remember just how many overwhelming arguments there are. The science is in, most people talk about their doubts about AGW and they don't even try to understand the science. The talk of double standards from denialist/skeptics is actually a double standard - what facts, based in science and research, have denialist/skeptics ever presented?

The only fact denialist/skeptics need to assess is if it's in the coal and oil industry's interest to cast enough doubt in everyone's minds to promote inaction, which is so much cheaper than actually doing something.

If AGW is a complete figment of our imagination, then we are in a lot of trouble because if the denialist/skeptics are right then we cannot do a thing to stop the inevitable collapse of the ecosystem, our food production systems and the inevitable billions of deaths that will follow.

However, the science I've examined rationally demonstrates AGW is a human externality caused by the irresponsible use of natural resources and dogmatic skepticism is just a way of dodging responsibility for mending our ways. We don't want to do because we are just so comfortable. Anything that makes us uncomfortable must be bad so it's easier to stick with apathy because inaction is just what the oil and coal companies want so they don't have to change.

Your position of political over-analysing is like asking "Are we sure this truck heading toward us", getting hit by it and then asking the doctor to say you "died from internal injuries" instead of "got hit by a truck" because you have a problem with double standards.

There is no science in your problem, only politics.

The City of London is different from London City. City of London is more like a Chamber of Commerce that started over a thousand years ago

They will never.ever.ever.ever.stop.never

I think the baby boomers have all run out of ideas and don't trust the younger generations. They want everything and are just wreaking the place before they leave because it's easier than leaving a solid base for the future.

He is all about the stick and not about the carrot, Mr Rabbit.

Stop talking out your arse. Take the 'Aussie Pride' sticker of the back of the ute you drive and wake up you dumb ignorant anonymous gutless prick. They are right, and Australia is turning into this because useless dickhead such as you.

You are like the fucking cane toads ruining Australia. A fucking useless and ugly pest.

It did create the Big Bang, we are now in the infinite time and mass between kicks.

I am Australian - and I endorse everything you say.

I'll add that there are a lot of Australians that are sick of it. Unfortunately the dumb as fuck, thick as a house brick masses are such blind, igorant, apethetic, insular and stupid cowards they just cheers the government on into making Australia a police state.

Meanwhile, any Australian who cares about the country looks on in horror. We are one despot away from a dictatorship.

Soldiers protect us from foreign enemies, Whistleblowers protect us from domestic enemies. They are both heros however, the attacks and wounds they suffer differ.

He means, we all aspire to live as if we're Putin, who aspires to live like he was Chuck Norris.

If we were directly exposed to trying to live like Chuck Norris we would die from infinitely trying to roundhouse kick ourselves in the head for trying to live the Chuck Norris. Consequently we "does not live the guy" because Putin saves us from not being Chuck Norris as he is the only man manly enough to survive his own roundhouse kick to the head.

You don't give management all of the information they need as it creates a reporting burden for no reason. They don't know how difficult the reports are to use and they won't use a dashboard because that means they have to think about the dashboard instead of the decisions they are trying to make.

If you have management that wants reports, you ask them what they need to decide on and then you ensure that they will get *that* information without all the fluff. It doesn't matter whether or not anyone here thinks if dashboards vs reports are relevant, is it relevant to the user of the data? Unlike sales dashboards where management knows what they are looking for, they have now idea what technology articles they need, so until that day arrives, reports based on what decisions they have to make, are.

And that is what you have to say.

Yeah but it would be cool if it could help you rat dance!

Actually "The Moon" is Chuck Norris mooning the whole earth. That's why it is called "The Moon", no other mooning comes close.