Who do you think are climatologist?
They are all Geologists, statisticians, economists, mathematicians, psychologists, physicists, etc...
So you are saying Dyson is not as capable at basic understanding of the "high school grade SETTLED science" that is climate science?
You simple minded ideologists cant have your cake and eat it too. Its either simple grade school science or its not. Its either settled or its not.
Your argumenting from emotion and have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
I never said this was "high school grade SETTLED science", you did. So arguing that point is, well, pointless. Maybe you think everyone who posts something you disagree with is the same person and we all think with one big hive mind, but I assure you that is not the case. Secondly, I never claimed Dyson was incapable of anything. What I did was correct chipschap's mischaracterization of AC's post. You know, sort of how you are trying to mischaractarize my post by reading what you want to read and not what I wrote. Seems like you are the one arguing from emotion, friend.
What you're saying is that his conclusions are politically incorrect and don't agree with what you feel compelled to believe, for whatever reasons.
The AC said no such thing. He said he doesn't put much weight into what a non-climate scientist says about climate science when actual climatologists say differently.
Or in the pixels my eye perceives. Art is about experiencing the artist's perspective or portrayal of a subject. If artist and the viewer are requirements for art to exist, so if someone creates a thing and both parties agree its art who can argue otherwise?
It looks like you are begging the question though. Of course, if artist and viewer consider something to be art, then it is art. There's no argument there. The problem comes when the artist considers something to be art, but the viewer does not. Or vica versa. What if the viewer sees art, but the "artist" does not. Perhaps the artist does not even consider himself to be an artist. What then? Does this change the artness of whatever it is we are talking about?
Also, what about when neither "artist" nor viewer consider it to be art, but some random dude on the internet proclaims it is. Then is it art? In this case, I am referring to people who aren't looking at the thing specifically, but say things like "All video games are art. Period." Is this necessarily the case?
Would you prefer they shit diamonds? Being serious here, but you do know that polystyrene foam is made from refined oil, yes? Once the oil is extracted, you can either A) leave it in a tank. B: make it into something and bury it into the ground. C) Covert it back into CO2 via burning or organic methods.
What would you prefer is done with the existing polystyrene foam out there?
The obvious answer is leave it buried in the ground. Anthropogenic global warming is caused by us taking carbons that have been locked away underground in the form of fossil fuels and releasing them into the atmosphere. If we use those fossil fuels but keep the carbon locked up or re-entered into the ground instead of the atmosphere, we wouldn't have nearly as much trouble with all the greenhouse effects. We'd have another problem in the form of mountains of waste we don't know what to do with, but that's a different discussion.
landing on the Martian surface in the late 2030s
The US being the Hare, who is the tortoise? Hint: they all live in China.
. . but . . the Chinese live in China!
"They were subtle and had convincing arguments, yet in your mind they were all definitely trolls. Why is that?"
How about first you explain why so many people are fond of straw men.
GP stated "Whatever happened to the subtle trolls (yes they did exist)..," showing (s)he does in fact believe they were trolls, and then gave two pieces of evidence which I claim shows they weren't trolls at all. Please explain where you see a straw man in this argument.
..has really done down. These guys might as well hang a flashing neon TROLL or SHILL sign above their posts nowadays its so obvious. Whatever happened to the subtle trolls (yes they did exist) that had - on the surface at least - had very convincing arguments?
Perhaps they weren't trolls at all, and simply had different opinions than you do. They were subtle and had convincing arguments, yet in your mind they were all definitely trolls. Why is that?
So this isn't about a statute of limitations. It's about something more like the U.S. 6th Ammendment which, basically, bans open ended investigations and other Kafkaesque stuff. Within a reasonable timeframe law enforcement has to bring formal charges to a court of law, specifying exactly what the person is accused of, the court decides and that's the end of it.
What do you think a statute of limitations is?
The hardest part of climbing the ladder of success is getting through the crowd at the bottom.