Are the Locke texts you're referring to available on Project Gutenberg or is there another place to find them?

Trust is not inherent in science as an ideal(which is one big thing that makes it different from religion), but as a social construct it is unavoidable. When scientists say they've detected a neutrino even if I were provided the equipment and methodology the results would be meaningless to me and others without understanding the subtleties in what I was detecting to prove the hypothesis. Basically specialized knowledge is required to make such observations worthwhile.

I don't know what fake "AGW fisaco" you're referring to, but here's some data that you claim the scientists don't have.

One can endlessly reinterpret a symbolic act because metaphors are always imperfect.

And the entomology is interesting, I wonder how the term became so completely opposite of the base components.

That's begging the question. The protesters aren't denying that licensing exists; but that technology has diminished it's value as an idea.

Well I'm sure not all of them are arguing that, but what is protesting but a pithy slogan or action to represent broader and more nuanced goals?

Because it's /. and most of this is tongue-in-cheek anyway.

Personally, I would love to have non-processed coffee after dinner and not be up the rest of the night.

This short story, and the series that followed it, might interest you.

Maybe not though.

Well played.

I think your definition of sustainability is flawed, but I don't think you're going to change your mind so I'm going to leave it at that.

Petroleum is a finite resource; we can and are using all of it up. That is the very definition of non-sustainable. Beyond that were we able to replace our petroleum-based fertilizer with another equally cheap fertilizer the result would still not be sustainable. Both the pesticides and nitrogen runoff that comes from maintaining these vast monocultures cause massive fish kills. Check out the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.

Relatively, it was much more sustainable. Sure they would have to leave areas fallow, but they didn't need to use petroleum fertilizers and vast monocultures the scale of which we have today were completely unheard of..

You sound hopelessly confused. First you needlessly dispute the meaning of conservative by providing two definitions and then apply them differently to the same scenario. Then you throw in a non-sequitur reductio ad absurdum claiming "climate science" has no place estimating fresh water supply. The only way this argument is remotely coherent is if you assume that "engineering" is unrelated to science. However, that is completely ridiculous as engineering is applied science.

What a troll. This has nothing to do with the IPCC, and the scientists in this case were being the opposite of alarmist.

This is the guise fascism takes in America; outsourcing the abrogation of rights to private industries as an end run around the constitution.