In fifteen years, when they write the two paragraphs in the 8th grade history books about this election, do you think Donald Trump will even be mentioned?
Or that Hillary will receive a sentence?
I'm the voter who's going to decide who becomes the next POTOUS.
Looks like someone has tickets on themselves here...
You do realise the papers talked about in the climategate emails were published and did make it into the IPCC reports, right?
There's still the sticky matter of intent. Those emails make the intent clear. Now, maybe the people in question cooled down after the heat of the moment and didn't carry through on their threats. Or maybe they did, but failed due to obstacles in their path. We don't know from the emails, but it's showing more of that blatant and emotional anti-scientific bias that colored their thinking and probably their research.
When you talk about the AR4's "devastating" projections are you taking into account the time frame?
Well, I'm sure you've heard of GlacierGate (2035, and all the glaciers in the himalayas were supposed to disappear). Yes, I know these errors have been already admitted, but they're sort of what IPCC AR4 ended up representing as highlights...which the sensationalist press took on as gospel truth, which when debunked got trumpeted from the rooftops by every right wing kook that thinks evolution is wrong, so on and so on.
When it comes to the rate of change, I'm not convinced that we're looking at accelerating changes from 2000 years to 200 years -> my bet is that climate sensitivity is actually low enough and filled with enough negative feedback effects that our contribution is negligible. Of course, I could be wrong, but from what I can gather of the poor proxies that we have to look at in the past, we've already seen historical abrupt changes before.
On top of that, I'm of the firm belief that if global warming was real, and was happening due to CO2 emissions of man, we should encourage it -> a warm world is a better world for humanity in general, and since even though we might see a dramatic shift in 200 years, the upper bounds for any positive feedback effect will stop it from being a runaway situation. If we could re-enter the medieval warm period tomorrow, and stay there for thousands of years, it would be beneficial to humanity, especially considering the poles end up doing most of the warming -> we're not talking about los angeles become 120C year round, we're talking about the upper latitudes going from 40C to 60C...further, I think there's a pretty good argument that our increased global average isn't because of higher maximums, but more from higher minimums (that is to say, our winter months are getting hotter, not our summer months).
Anyway, in 20 years, you can buy dinner, and I'll buy the drinks
Evolution, for example, was crafted with a complete lack of data in its time
This claim has always been wrong. Read Darwin's original works and that of pro-evolutionary contemporaries like Thomas Henry Huxley or Alfred Russel Wallace. They back their claims with copious evidence. Much of it is obsolete with better supporting evidence nowadays or wrong due to mistakes of the time, but this old work doesn't deserve the libel you heap upon it.
"We do not believe that switching the internet off will have any material impact on the incidence of content piracy. It is, at best, a clumsy shotgun approach to halting infringements. [...] Prosecutors such as AFACT will continue to say “that’s not good enough” but until rights holders abandon the ‘Charlie Chaplin’ era business model and embrace digital distribution techniques that exploit the power if the internet (rather than demanding it be switched off), the gap between ISPs and rights holders will continue to create tension."