Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

But, seriously: Shouldn't such an indictment of the current peer-review system (…I repeated all those extra words, for those whose memories are extremely short…) obviate any argument that relies on "consensus"?

Consensus and peer review are central to science as academic discipline.

I take it, you think I should "fix" or replace the dozens of supercomputer models relied upon by the IPCC myself — otherwise, pointing out that their predictions have failed is counter-productive?

One does not need to know that 2 + 2 = 4 to know that 2 + 2 ≠ 5… As always, your primitive logic confuses you.

The difference in this case is not merely knowing, but being able to prove. If you are unable to prove that IPCC is a case of 2 + 2 = 5, then I don't care what you secretly know in your own mind. What matters is that you are unable to back up what you say.

The difference in this case is not merely knowing, but being able to prove.

To say that one can't criticize a scientific model -for its failures- unless one has a better one is — well, just stupid.

If you can't prove it, you don't know it… (Of course, you reject that bit of reasoning!)

IPCC climatology is fundamentally as wrong as mainstream economics. The entire field is thoroughly discredited, because it absolutely fails to be predictive. Meanwhile, has economics been annihilated? No. Why not? Because you cannot annihilate economy. Economy goes on anyway even when you annihilate economics. Since economy is what it is, you inevitably need economists too, even when their models are flawed and defective. Similarly, ecology is vital and goes on regardless of the state of the mainstream science about it. The wise thing to do is to recognise its realities regardless of the stupid science.

You, on the other hand, have directly said that ecology does not exist. If you were consistent, you should hold that economy does not exist either. And if economy does not exist, then CO₂ restrictions should mean as little to you as CO₂ emissions do. If ecology and economy are are only "reification" and in reality they don't exist, then you have no reason to whine about any measures to restrict economy and ease ecology.

American way of life doesn't mean polluting and destroying as so many of your co-citizens realizes. In fact, an entire new industry is growing with respect for ecological concerns.
That's the way to go for both moral and economical reasons, it is called sustainable development.

Man doesn't need to destroy Nature, he can work with it.

Means of communication is that by which one conveys one's knowledge, not by which one holds the knowledge. So, failure to communicate does not necessarily mean lack of knowledge.

He's defending, and solely (all the rest is mambo jambo), the American heavy polluting industry that, obviously, sees ecological concerns as a menace to their profitability and survival.

So…? Europe and China and India (and, soon, Africa…) are beside the point — as long as one can blame America? 

Europeans are in the leadership for change.

Despite our still quite strong contingent of Euro-philes (mostly, in academia and government bureaucracy — the "intelligentsia," and you'll recall how Lenin described them?    ), we will not succumb to your vices…

An American Leninist disguised as a Conservative...

Two researchers applied common neuroscience techniques to a classic computer chip. Their results are a wake-up call for the whole field.

So, Eric Jonas and Konrad Kording wondered, what would happen if they studied the chip in the style of neuroscientists? How would the approaches that are being used to study the complex squishy brain fare when used on a far simpler artificial processor? Could they re-discover everything we know about its transistors and logic gates, about how they process information and run simple video games? Forget attention, emotion, learning, memory, and creativity; using the techniques of neuroscience, could Jonas and Kording comprehend Donkey Kong?No. They couldn’t. Not even close.  Even though the duo knew everything about the chip—the state of each transistor and the voltage along every wire—their inferences were trivial at best and seriously misleading at worst. “Most of my friends assumed that we’d pull out some insights about how the processor works,” says Jonas. “But what we extracted was so incredibly superficial. We saw that the processor has a clock and it sometimes reads and writes to memory. Awesome, but in the real world, this would be a millions-of-dollars data set.”