Obviously. This isn't the only mistype in my post, btw.

That is an outrageous lie. Given how often the counter position is stated, there is no way that you are now aware of it. So you must be telling what isn't truth despite the fact that you know that it is false. That's a lie. The interests on the side of AGW theory are much better funded and have much more at stake than the skeptics. So as far as the funding is concerned, it is the skeptics who have an uphill battle. As far as calling the collected data "evidence", that is also a lie, because most of the skepticism is of the conclusions drawn from the collected data. You don't need evidence to counter a bad conclusion if you can show that the interpretation mechanisms are flawed.

How do you fail to grasp that this is a multi-trillion dollar endeavor and an unprecedented power grab? How do you shill for a study which might even slightly question the extremes of AGW predictions. AGW is a theory which is used to make calls for drastic dystopian change to the world. How do you possibly ask to do that without at evidence even when it is presented?

The reason that proponents of the anthropomorphic theory are much, much more suspect is that they refuse to admit that there is more money on the side of that GW camp. It's just not money coming from private hands. This theory is widely seen as a way to increase government power through arbitrarily-applied regulation and equally arbitrary government subsidies. As much money as the oil industry has, the governments get to print money, so they have more.

Only when there is no outside bias. Given the tremendous pressure applied on the scientific community by the government and the media to comply with the AGW agenda or be labeled a pariah, and given how vitriolic and visceral the attacks on skeptics are (even going so far as to relabeling them "deniers" so as to pull their credentials as thinking individuals), there is no credible way to claim that there is no outside bias. Any claims to the contrary are down right insane.

Slashdot (the headline of this post, for one) felt the need to counter Bloomberg's summary with NY Times summary.

You must be talking about something else then. The study claims the data shows plateauing since the 2000. It doesn't directly conclude that the previous conclusions (that GW is anthropogenic) were wrong. But it does provide evidence to support investing such a possibility.

Not really. Not when studying a trend in which the main conclusion was drawn based on a jump during a 20 year period. Plateauing for 10 years is actually quite telling about the overall trend..

You probably meant oil-exporting. Most countries in the world are oil producing. Only the oil-exporting ones can be argued to have an interest in selling oil.

Oh, and that aside, you are an unbelievable tool. The likes of you were the ones running the inquisition... not arguing for it, not providing the philosophical basis for it, not the ones paying for it. You are of the ilk that took the pleasure in just being a part of it.

Aristotle: "most technology has already been discovered." He was, of course, saying that the most important aspect of human affairs is politics. And he was saying it in the book which was dedicated to describing the nature of politics. He did a fine job of the latter despite the silly opinion on scientific progress. Let's deconstruct a little bit. If nothing else, more advanced technology requires a longer period of initial entry point preparation. So more of a life span is spent on studying than before. Which requires more educators, newer methods of education, etc. It seems like most people in education "industry" seem to think they can cash in on that by simply providing more of their services at more expensive prices, but, of course, it will not work. Inefficient constructs will fail over medium term (not short as the students hope), but not long (as the teachers hope). As for the larger question, in general, whenever you hear someone say "this time it's different", they are selling something. Here's why: the point of this phrase is to get a person to throw away their current priorities... to disregard everything they care about at the moment. Once their life priorities are diminished, they are more willing to explore new directions (ie, other priorities) for their time, money, body, etc.

Are you implying their breasts and noses are genetically rather than surgically shaped? Based on what?

Didn't. Or isn't supposed to But scientists are human. They do have to eat. Which means they have to work for profit or for hand outs. And then it's just the matter of who's motivated to give the hand outs (grants).

I don't know too many deniers. Plenty of skeptics though. And the more ad hominems are used to defend "science" (for example, by calling skeptics "deniers"), the less scientific credibility these positions have.

Who'd pay for it? If you can't establish credibility, you can't get paid. If you question paid-for consensus, you get shut down as not credible. It's catch 22. Unless you show that a lot of grant money goes to credible efforts to actively disprove the hypothesis, you can't claim that it's been tested and vetted. You need to show me where you have grants which actually motivate contrarian evidence. An no, oil company payments don't count. Because receiving those immediately discredits the researchers. So can you show me government sponsored research aimed at disproving AGW and done by researchers who are paid more only if they can successfully challenge some of the standing hypothesis? No? Only grant money if they provide further evidence supporting government control and intervention? Nough said.

Why is it a "problem" with the market? People getting what they want instead of what sociologists' (sorry, psychopaths') believes of what they need? That's how "satisfaction" is defined -- getting what you want. The fact that strangers, who would rather be entertained by troubles in your relationship than see you be genuinely content, don't get to enjoy the show of your relationship fiascos is not a "problem."

Well, at least, that's what they'll claim. And they'll, of course, attempt to use their clout as "the science guys" to claim that their deductions are accurate. They might even get some legitimate linguists researchers on their side. Grant money buys a lot of consensus.

welcome our stylistic overlords

You are an armature. Making mark-and-sweep mission critical actually requires a trick which DOES include keeping track of all memory you grab from the heap. Relying on gc is only something you can afford to do with low-frequency-creation-destruction objects. Just so you understand, I have written systems which relied on GC-based languages and which had to create and destroy objects faster than GC could handle them. And the way I did it did not make the system grow to the worst-case-scenario use pooling. Tell me I am a sissy to my face... cause my code will run circles around your code :P

Only if you think that a program "does" stuff. If you think of the actions in the program as secondary to what is being accomplished, OO reduces the attention span foot print.

You are a bad person. I mean it. From the bottom of my heart. You think that 20 seconds of your typing is worth 20 minutes of my reading.

entirely optional. and can be turned off at compile time.

only part of runtime if you want it to be.

utter unadulterated nonsense. you have multiple ways of handling memory allocation. you can have custom memory management schemes. C standard library pretty much is guaranteed to cause memory fragmentation.

if it's an issue, than don't make them global. there are standard (ie, language guaranteed) ways to control their run order... they come directly from C, btw, so not sure if you know both languages as well as you think