No the real trouble is that it's clear that a lot of the climate change "science" is motivated by factors other than reaching the truth - especially personal careers and politics.

Slashdot story about stamps?!

No, no, you people in the US are just plain stupid enough to decimate your own economy all on your own.

Wow - either Ballmer is an A-grade ignoramus or (more likely) an A-grade liar!

Wish I had a dollar for every piece of anecdotal evidence!

Until/unless you drive your motorboat around 24x7 your comparison sucks.

I'd go so far as to say it's a religion!

Just as the "scientists" who wrote the emails in the first place missed the point of science?

Prove it.

Please, please show proof that any model with 10+ year response times is demonstrably valid.

The problem is that we only have ~100 years of good data and ~200 years of fair data and very poor data prior to that

The fundamental problem that I (as a person with a good knowledge of statistics) have is that all the data pre-processing (a.k.a. faking) that goes on gives unreasonably low estimates of the variance (or standard deviations or confidence intervals).

A good scientist should define a clear model and use all of the raw data to validate the model. Then and only then can the model be used to extrapolate - say to the future or to the causes of climate change.

Exactly! It shouldn't be too hard to make the cockpit windscreen able to block or attenuate lasers. Biggest problem is that technology is required in a technology-averse industry.