You can't blame a dog for licking you.

That's because it is a *dog*.

Law enforcement wants every tool it can have to do its job.

Law enforcement consists (largely) of people. They are not dogs. We expect people to be able to make moral decisions. So yes we can and should blame the people.

If I was a signals intelligence person, of course I'd want to be able to tap ALL the phone lines.

Why? Do you have no moral compass or do you just not believe in a right to privacy? If your moral compass switches off as soon as your employer changes, then it's not a moral compass, it's a moral yo-yo.

protect their developers' creations.

So, you think it's ok just to steal his money? That video is as much his as it is theirs. You're suggesting that all the money should go to Nintendo. Why the blatant double standards?

I've never been to Paris, but I can gather enough data to show it exists.

That's nice, but I don't follow your point. Paris is easy to observe. Global climate change is much trickier. Are you saying you have enough data to (dis)prove AGW?

In either case, you'll require some sort of evidence of that otherwise you have no credibility.

So, you admit they got their math wrong, and are misreporting their results? :)

I conceed no such thing. :) I haven't checked, you see.

I just didn't like your conclusion, that's all.

Poe's law is alive and well, it would seem.

I thought that being a good scientist meant looking at facts objectively instead of fitting the facts to your predisposed feelings. I guess that must be the "old white guy" science that has fortunately been superseded by collective groupthink.

OK then where do you get your information from? Do you make measurements yourself? Do you use any of the publicly available datasets? Have you tried modelling the climate yourself? Have you read a decent number of actual papers from a scientific journal (not any interpretation from some other news source), spoken to any real practicing climate scientists or actually tried doing any of the science yourself?

If the answer to all of them is "no", then you're just as guilty of collective groupthink you accuse others of, and you merely feel superior because you've picked group that you happen to favour.

If the answer is yes, then I'd love to hear about it.

So, I look forward to judging you by your actions rather than empty rhetoric.

Oh really?

YA RLY.

Of the two predictions I listed above (and believe me, climate researchers have made both predictions)

Well, no I don't believe you. Climate scientists make predictions about the climate, not the weather on the whole.

Oh, but SOME of the predictions MIGHT come true one day you say!

Allow me to introduce you to the world of real numbers and probability densities.

The models generally predict a possible outcome. Noone expects them to be exact to the last decimal place. Taking the models, the IPCC got a nice range of future predictions. Guess what? The real data fitted exactly within the range of predictions.

In other words the models had successful predictive power.

http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/

Look at the PDF.

Here's a hint: Science is rooted in facts, experiments, and observations.

Yeah, and when the model matches reality like in this case, it's generally taken as a good indication that the model is OK.

Considering that most climate scientists get a paycheck from the politicians who want a certain outcome to be true

Now you're in the realm of paranoid delusion.

almost every major scientific advance has been made by a few "rogue" scientists advocating rogue theories which at one time have been dismissed by most scientists in the field

On the other hand, some people are still banging on about the luminiferous aether.

Just because the majority have been wrong in the past about some topics doesn't in any relate to the current one. I'd wager that in most cases where people disagree with the majority, the disagreers are wrong.

Remember: you're going with some heavy selection bias picking the few counter examples. For every one of them, there have been a thousand lunatics who were completely and utterly wrong.

And yet, the planet seem to persistently refuse to get warmer...

Despite what all the measurements say. It's amazing what a deceiving bastard the planet is. I say we kill it.

So, basically you're taking the end results which end up in the popular press (you yourself selected local weather events) and blaming that on the scientific community? And then going from that to dismissing all the work of the science community?

That's clutching at straws to say the least.

Boy, warmists are really bad at math!

So, you see one publication by one set of people and come to the conclusion that all "warmists" are bad at maths?

And you're the one levelling accusations of bias?

I agree with the guy who can't speak English!

how do yu kno that me cant speak english youve only seen me type it so surely you should be saying you agreee with the guy who cant type english

They might all agree but I read this climatescienceskeptic blog which gives a whole bunch of really obvious ideas about why its natural or not happening at all like the solar output or volcanos which I'm pretty sure that all the scientists are too dumb to have realised happen so I'm going to go with the blog.

Rounding everyone up and decide who to actually arrest later sounds like scorched earth tactics to me.

Well, it's an excellent analogy. When you have nice law abiding citizens who do what the police say, kettling works. You can round up a bunch of innocent people and deprive them of their democratics rights---all piling hay onto the haystack.

When you actually have rioters as was demonstrated a month or two notice who are charging around at random, hurling petrol bombs, steling things, overturning cars and setting fire to stuff, kettling isn't a tactic which even works in the slightest.

But the police seem to love hay since those needles are prickly and hard to deal with.

Not necessarily.

I would say that crime is always a problem: if people are doing bad things, then that is a problem and if people doing reasonable things are crimianlised then that too is a problem.