What's interesting is at the time this was posted Russia had already invaded the Ukraine.

Are you going to address my arguments or are you just going to call them false without providing evidence? How about how many times the IPCC have been caught lying?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Responses_and_criticisms

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#ixzz2udqBRi6x

http://www.sasfor.com/39/post/2010/01/ipcc-caught-lying-again.html

When their data is questions they switch to ad-hominem attacks. Climate scientists act like a bunch of radicals on a crusade rather than actual scientists and they get political power because of their scare tactics against those who aren't capable of arguing against them. They're eschatologists.

I already posted a paper. And are black neighborhoods over policed or are they policed because blacks are more criminal? Criminologists will be the first to tell you that blacks are simply more criminal.

http://www.examiner.com/article/federal-statistics-of-black-on-white-violence-with-links-and-mathematical-extrapolation-formulas

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/time-young-black-men-murder-14-times-more-than-young-white-men/

http://www.wnd.com/2001/03/8380/

Are federal statistics made up because of racism?

I provided research (you may have missed it but that article cited several papers), how about you provide yours?

I absolutely do understand what it is, it's others who don't and thus use it incorrectly.

Well sure, in specific areas of data analysis. But most people I find think Occam's razor can be applied much more broadly. Example: 'The sky is blue, water is blue, therefore the sky is made of water. This is the correct answer because it's the simplest explanation.'

> Poor areas dont just "already receive all of those things."

Yes they do, they're just not taken full advantage of.

>Those things do stop people from committing crimes.

Evidence shows they do now.

> If you ever had to talk to a person in a situation where crime is the only means of accessing money, the means of survival in this society, maybe your opinion would change.

Crime is not the only means for accessing money, they may feel it is, but again there is no empirical link between poverty and crime, however there may be a link between crime and poverty. That is to say people may be impoverished because they are criminal. In any case, there is no excuse for committing a crime especially when there are so many social institutions in place for you.

There is a link to dense urban populations and crime however. But I think researchers just use that as a code word for black people as the same results can't be found in majority white areas.

None of those things reduce criminality, not even employment. Poor areas already receive all of those things but it hasn't reduced crime a bit. And why should college be any kind of a goal? It's a debt trap, you're much better off in a vocational school, you don't even need to finish high school and you could be making $50,000 a year after 2 years in a vocational school.

Education isn't some kind of magic bullet, nor is it really necessary, the best schools in the world are in Finland and they have the least school hours and the least homework.

http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/poverty.htm

Racism? Really? Do you have any proof for that? The reason so many people are in prison is because we have harsher sentences , broader laws, and more laws. And the reason we have harsher sentences is because we are afraid of 'criminality', and the prison guard unions and police unions are powerful.

Also Occam's razor isn't any kind of scientific standard or measure.

Anybody who submits counter evidence is immediately labeled as a 'denialist' rather than taken seriously, which is part of the problem. Also methane is another very weak greenhouse gas, and the response doesn't account for what atomic absorption spectroscopy shows. The big greenhouse gas is water vapor.

The peer reviewed publications are looked at by other climatologists, it's just an echo chamber, any counter-evidence is immediately discarded as denialism for example the 2003 paper which tried to discredit the hockey stick graph which did actually get a response though much of it was name calling.

The vast majority of climate models haven't worked out though, which recently caused a big controversy because they couldn't account for the heating that was predicted but didn't show up in the atmosphere. They later found it in the oceans however, which have been acting as a massive heat sink, which one and only one model predicted and it wasn't the one they expected.

But I learned climate change on my mothers knee and I'm skeptical of it being man made. There's a lot of conflicting information out there so it's hard to make sense of it all, especially since most of the climate models haven't worked out. Is it true that humans only contribute 7% of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is very small according to atomic absorption spectroscopy analysis? Also couldn't out-gassing be contributing to the increase of CO2? I get the impression that any kind of research skeptical towards anthropogenic climate changed isn't taken seriously at all by the climatologist community, to the point of ideological fascism.

>I've never been a part of a community as educated, rational, intelligent, curious, and generally not mean-spirited.

I see people say this a lot but I get the impression it just means they agree with everything that is said and what is said is usually main-stream liberal ideology.