Yes, the best thing to do with a guard dog is to mistreat it and starve it. That will never backfire.

Do you suppose they might be making a fuss about the loopholes so that people get upset enough that they will be allowed to close them? Remember, Grover Norquist opposes closing tax loopholes unless the base rate of taxes is lowered to compensate for the increased revenue and he owns the balls of the entire Republican party.

Except, according to the shell company game that Apple is playing, revenues generated in the U.S. are actually generated in "no country" at all. In fact, the U.S. branch of Apple probably has gigantic expenses that it owes to another branch of the company that operates in international waters (or the Cayman Islands, or Ireland) for the use of the trademark "Apple". It's a shame, if that other part of the company operating out of international waters weren't so darn greedy, the American branch of Apple might be able to turn a profit*.

* This may be a slight exageration, but it's an example of one of the tricks that Apple, Google, Microsoft, and other companies use to hide local revenues from local jurisdictions.

What, by off-shoring production of their smart phones to China? Imagine the horror if Apple did that!

That would be an interesting study, but I don't think it would practical to do so. I doubt most journals archive copies of articles they don't print. Of course, someone should give it a try. I expect the result will be far from what you would expect. According to the information available to me, it looks like the majority of rejected papers that deal with the source of global warming, also support the human-cause hypothesis. I am aware that at various times the people who promote the idea that alternate viewpoints are being excluded from publication have been challenged to provide proof. So far they have been unable to find any papers that were being excluded from publication on any grounds other than poor methodology (which has directly led to unreliable conclusions). In fact, there is real evidence to show that some scientists who are opposed to the human-cause hypothesis were actually given preferential treatment in one journal. There's no evidence of the opposite happening.

You are correct, I misunderstood what the two-thirds number was about. Two-thirds of the papers didn't take a position on whether humans were causing global warming and it's likely that the reason is because they weren't about the causes of climate change or a topic strongly related to that.

Actually, 1998 is now the 3rd warmest year on record behind 2005 and 2010.
In the United States, 1934 is the 4th warmest year on record behind 1998, 2006, and 2012.
Globally, 1934 is the 49th warmest year because the extreme heat was mostly limited to North America.

That would be a problem, but assuming you mean the American government, it hasn't actually taken many, if any, steps to fight global warming. A major reason for that is that Republican party strategists have focused on a campaign of claiming that the science isn't settled in direct contradiction to fact, confirmed by this study, that it is. This argument is used to delay and derail any legislation that might govern traditional Republican allies in the oil and coal industries.

You're committing the logical falacy of appeal to consequences. Whether or not you like the remedy has no bearing on whether the problem exists.

I'm not sure how many scientists there were around 300 BC, which was when the Earth was first proven to be round, but I'm pretty sure that the religious fundamentalists would have been the ones saying it wasn't.

I don't think you understood that sentence, it seems pretty clear that it means:
"They also asked 1,200 of the scientists involved in the research to self-evaluate their own studies, with nearly identical results [to the evaluations provided by the study's volunteers]"

There you go:

You've made a mistake, it was two thirds of the scientific papers that didn't take a position on climate change. Most often, I think, because they weren't about climate change or a strongly related topic.

There are several other polls that showed that 97% of climate scientists agree that it's occurring, and 80-90% of scientists in related fields also think so.

No, actually. CO2 concentrations increase temperature logarithmicly, so while population is increasing at a decreasing exponential rate (expected to hit 0% growth this century), the higher the concentration of CO2 goes, the less warming each addition ppm actualy contributes.

You math is off, the warming trend is flat if (and only if) you take start from the fall of 1997, and that's 16 years currently. However, that's a cherry-picked start date and there are problems with choosing your data to make a particular point. more generally,you can always draw flat trend lines on noisy data regardless of whether the overall trend is up, down or constant.

It's hard to make someone understand a thing when his self-respect depends on him not understanding it.

97% of scientists agree that global warming has the best and strongest proof. Now what?