Not only this. They can't read the 1st amendment. I don't recall that it has anything in it about being anonymous or not ...

I second you on dirvish, this is an excellent software, which we use a lot.

If you don't want to get it, don't start with: "i didn't realize you were ignorant enough". That's not very subtle either... Gosh, I'd better stop, it seems nobody understand sarcasms in here... Sheldon Cooper, I know it's you!

I didn't need to read the emails. I had a look to the pascal code for drawing the East Anglia curve, and saw the way they did their "fudge factor". For that, I have an expertise, and I can tell that this is crap. This pascal code was not science, but hacking to get the expected result.

On a normal scientific process, we wouldn't have need a weasel blower to get the above pascal code. It would have been published, together with the data. This is simply not what happened, they have been hiding behind copyright to refuse to publish it.

Citation needed...

Well, I've been reading M. Vicent Courtillot. He's not a moron, he's a real scientific. Well, of course, not a "climatologist" (but a geologist), because those are all paid for alarming you about the warming, so they are in direct conflict of interest.

Luckily, the people are reading the scientific studies as well, which influences our politics, and there are enough people with scientific knowledge to understand what is being said. Lucky, many don't believe the lie that it's too complicated and that it cannot be understood. Luckily, there are people smart enough to explain in a simple way things that others are trying to make complicated on purpose. Luckily, there are still some politicians that are against the CO2 taxes against the poor, and in favor of Al Gore and friends who got some shares in the CO2 market. Luckily, there's still some people that believe a curve is a curve, and that even a 10 years old can understand an up or a down trend. Luckily, there's still some scientific doing real analysis, doing some conferences freely available on the Internet, and which (almost) everyone can understand (of course, you need to make the effort to read them...), and luckily, it's not all about scoop and big titles.

It's not any better, I'm just making the point that my opponent had no point calling me ignorant. But maybe that's too subtle for you.

So, I don't have the expertise to read a curve, and say if it goes up or down? COME ON !!!

Right. So everyone that do not agree with you is a moron. This goes in the right direction!

I just read the curve of the last 10 years. I don't care if you don't believe it, but the fact is that it's not going up!

Well, that's the problem. Everyone is using the scale that they like to prove a point. If we take the last 10 years, then it's not enough. If we take 1000 years, then we are told that it's too much. Of course, if you take exactly 30 years, you'll have a trend that shows an increase. All this is silly...

What do you know of me? Nothing. What do you know about who I read / watch? Nothing as well. So please don't make such assumptions.

Shit, I didn't realize you were a cunt ... The discussion can stop here at this point, if you use such language.

Right. As if believers wouldn't. As if Al Gore didn't exist. As if warmists didn't have extreme position on climate change. As if the climate-gate emails never existed. As if nobody pretended that Himalaya glaciers would melt within 50 years when they are in fact expanding. As if ...
Come on, make a list of what "skeptics" made as famous mistake, and try to compare with the list above, then you tell me who's selecting "bits and pieces that serve their goal".

Shit, got to loose what I moderated for that one...

How about ... the last 10 years of temperature records? Isn't this scientific evidence? I'm not saying that CO2 has no impact (nobody is fool enough to say that), but at least it hasn't been enough to warm the earth over the past decade.

It's a mater of views, I guess. You could say that CO2 is a pollutant, but plants and trees wont agree with you. To many organisms, O2 would be a pollutant too. With half a brain, this leads us to say that CO2 isn't more a pollutant than water.

That's reverse thinking. If you burn Dy-hidrogen, then the product of this combustion is water and oxygen. Would you still say that because water and oxygen are products of combustion, therefore they are pollutants? Of course, this doesn't make sense, neither it does to say that CO2 is a pollutant. What makes sense is to say that an excess of CO2 might be bad for the earth (but we aren't even sure of that, it's subject to a huge controversy, and there's less and less consensus about it).

I believe I'm one of the happy few who has the luck to work on what I like, with my own business. And I can work from any place in the world. But this has nothing to do with what I was talking about. It would take too long to explain to you my point, and I don't think that this site is the place to do so, so I wont, sorry.

My view of modern slavery is broader than what you think. The recent financial crisis highlighted it, and I'm sure that occupy participants would agree with my view on modern slavery, even in USA. The fact that you are defending "the west" shows how much you've been blinded by your masters and their propaganda. You're better than a slave: you are one that doesn't know he is, and that defends the system. BTW, calling me an adolescent doesn't make a point and just makes a fool out of you.

You seem to know so much about it. Do you have the device ready? :)
I'm sorry, but in Star Trek, they don't need a receiver device.

Quite not. With plane, it takes some time to travel, and you have an itinerary. Also we have radars. So it's possible to control the sky. Oh, unless you've invented a teleporter detector as well? :)