bloonail

"Snowdenistas" is not a term. Russia was not on the radar when Snowden made off. People aren't paranoid about their western governments. They are reasonably apprehensive about wholesale mining of every smidgen of information they generate getting reworked into a long tally of delayed actions and mocked up criminal charges should they ever veer in a way that isn't sanctioned by the 1%.

Mr Azakirjanik, you seem naive and pre-focused on the trivial. We all know that Snowden is a bit full of himself and bloated. thank you for pointing that out - but he's just a messenger. Not an oracle about the importance of the information, and frankly -- I'm glad he's told folk cause its lonely knowing something based on shapes in the clouds but never being able to tell anyone because it all seems like a wild-eyed conspiracy.

Isn't it better that people realize that there are 7 million people all around the world who can freely monitor the other 7 billion of us, in every detail of our lives, up to an including how our preference in dental floss changed over the last ten years, pivotally around the time we spent that weekend with Janya? Do you really believe its a good thing for a group of entitled elite to have the capability to put pressure on anyone, anywhere in the world based on an inherent capability to investigate and dig for their weaknesses through automated processes?

I'm looking at the middle para about "As claimed".

Humans "are causing" global warming. I believe that. We drained a lot of swamps. Took down trees. In those spots for vast areas it is warmer. That contributes to an overall warming planet where people live. Does that mean I'm saying that humans are contributing to a runaway greenhouse effect for the entire planet?

And "Authors of papers in categories 2 and 3 might believe humans are the cause". I don't. I think that our long term climate is tightly constrained by Jupiter's effect on our precession and Milankovitch cycles. Does that mean I'm supporting people induced climate change?

Is every clmate scientist with a nuanced opinion classified as believing in climate change? I'm not sure anyone could graduate believing that climate change didn't occur - I mean, we know it does. Its probably difficult to suspect that human's haven't had at least regional effects and are possibly contributing forcers. Is everyone who sees the potential that humans contribute firmly on the side that humans are the primary forcer? Doesn't Jupiter have a say? It did for the last 2.5 million years.

How has your experience with TBS-intelligent approach been? We're just starting it up in Toronto now.

Are you at all perturbed that phrase "97% of scientists" is very similar to the title of the resolutions submitted to counter Einstein's formulation of the equivalence of mass and energy?

Thanks. I appreciate it. I'm uncomfortable with the language used, not by yourself but overall.

"Denialist", "denier", "cognitive dissonance" and lately there are these papers about "Disagreement, Dogmatism, and Belief Polarization". I assume those are pre-amble to explain irrational resistance.

Moreover the method to arrive at 97% seems questionable. I mean- I believe that European arrival in North America contributed to the mini-ice age We spread small-pox; trees regrew. Does that make me a climate change supporter because I feel that halting smokey slash and burn will cause temperature drops. Am I supporting anthropomorphic climate change even if I believe we're heading towards a naturally caused ice age?

Are you comfortable with the ensemble methods in that regard? Doesn't it seem a bit flippy to group all opinions together as yes/no when or was there further levels of reduction to focus on those who support "the climate change" rather than "a climate change"?

I guess I'm not very impressed with some of the climate change scientists I know. I'm not sure if 97% of them have the capacity to be right. Bud here has fire on the cover of his book. My glaciology prof would not have approved.