Zero Sum

PT Barnum would have you read the actual paper again and say what the principal points of the paper were, named by the authors themselves... not being coy with you on this... but you can't present something as proof of your position and then disagree with its central hypothesis and mechanism, and conclusions.

There are mountains more evidence supporting the man-made effect on natural climate change than there is evidence that declares it all to be a natural phenomenon.
The political aspect that should be relevant is that policy informed by science, if it is to be reliable, should always follow the predominant scientific view of its day. Even if that science is faulty- which in this particular case is not. Perfect its not, nothing is. Playing politics away from that science while claiming scientific integrity through actual non-science and unaccepted science is not responsible science policy.
Such uncertainty begins to be measurable by new modeling.
How was it those 'real, actual observations' were made again? Think about this.
Falsification is not the same as uncertainty.

Interesting change of careers, I'd say!
I think the workings of science, as a research scientist until I was recruited by the Dark Side of the Force, need to be considered in direct, simplified concepts in order for more people to comprehend things correctly. I'll take a look at the posts after this one I'm responding to... but I suspect there is some degree of ignorance as to the methodologies and the error that signals power of analysis in statistics in the lay interpretations of the science of GW. I'll try to point those mistakes out to you if I see them.
Yes. Science revises its precepts as observational data becomes more complete and as the relationships controlling observable phenomena become more understood. It is a pity that as the science advances, so does a segment of human ignorance in its mechanisms. Exemplified here from time to time.

True that. You let every idiot vote and then you end up with these tea party deadbeats sitting in Congress terrorizing the nation.

So, does this mean you accept Global Warming as real? Because this study talks about anthropogenic climate change, which specifically means the warming of the planet from human activity. So, if you don't believe in the scientific theory of Global Warming, this study is useless to you. If you now believe in it, then to recognize the validity of this study, you'd have to accept that human activity is warming the planet.
Here's the abstract of the report:
This study doesn't dispute that human activity is warming the planet. What it does is address the uncertainties of future projections. Here's what one must accept in order to even consider this study: that human activity is definitely warming the planet. That is a departure from your consistent stance that Global Warming is bunk or junk science as you so often put it.
What's amusing is here you've taken an Op-Ed piece written from a guy (James Taylor) whose political organization, the Heartland Institute, has fought against the science behind tobacco smoke and is now fighting against the science of Global Warming, as some sort of factual dismissal of the Global Warming. You don't seem to understand the very study that James Taylor has editorialized for you, but rather you simply accept his opinion because you believe it supports your denial of Global Warming. Where's the critical thinking in that?

Do they make you fetch, rollover, and play dead?

It's time for the whole sorry bunch of legislators to resign.

Its the end. All those Alarmists will surely commit mass Seppukku now that they have been exposed as tax money thieves.

Interesting. Nice way to stay on topic. Would you be able to substantiate this or are you only going to rely on your delusional sense of reading between imaginary lines?

I could tolerate your perspective if it actually had any bearing on the topic.

I only posted it. Twice. Or was it thrice?
Even bolded parts. Underlined others. Italicized too.
Try again.

No, I just have the apparently rare (between the two of us) ability to say things I can back up.

I never claimed tolerance of the intolerant, did I? It must be more grandstanding wanting the thread to get locked with more Sofiramblings?

Yes. There's no evidence that kids raised by gay parents are any more "screwed up" than those raised by straight parents.

An Op-Ed piece from Forbes? Are you serious?
Try clicking on that hypertext link to this study that the author, James Taylor is editorializing on. It's a dead link.
I even tried to find the study online, but found nothing. Perhaps you could find an actual link?

Or make them more efficient and provide better energy producing mechanisms, without the knee-jerks.

That's a conscious statement but it's clearly at odds with the militant attitude you are projecting.

I think you should do yourself a favour and not stoop to the level of the ignorant people you despise. It makes your arguments laughable and trivialises the subject into the bargain.

You discredit yourself yourself with this reciprocity stuff. People who associate religious people with terrorism are ignorant, they aren't going to stop being ignorant because you play semantic games with them.
At the end of the day a lot of people have been violently murdered. It's not something that people should be using for their own amusement.

Plainly speaking, that's semantic nonsense

It's like saying that if you're against racism, you are bigoted against people who believe that other races are inferior.

Female gays are ok by kip too. And yet he seems to spend a lot of time fixating on man on man gay sex and how 'weird' and 'freaky' he finds it, something most heterosexually secure people probably think very little about.
It's like if you have a friend who bigs up his masculinity, but then buys a gay porn dvd just so he can show you how 'weird' it is and it doesn't occur to him what buying gay porn actually says about him.

Refusing to substantiate bogus claims is what it is. I know you feel validated by unsurprising 'support'... just remember the venue.
Indeed. And my comments I have not backed away from.
At the least you should be able to substantiate what my position is based on your keen observational skills and not what you may be deluding yourself into wanting to believe. In other threads you have been asked to do the same and in every single one you have claimed the right to make things up as you went along. Nothing new with this one.
You may want to call me a hypocrite based on your opinion, while refusing to back your own context up with that very same information that is readable here. That is being a liar, as you claim things that are untrue. Same old, same old.

Assuming you noticed, its the actual law I was referring to before having posted the text of the law- which you to this point have not even gotten close to addressing. FAIL.
I guess you're not even reading the post you just quoted very well either...