If rules to maintain freedom makes something non-free, then I guess that means Somalia is more free than the western world.

So we should just ignore patent abuse by large corporations because we haven't investigated our grocers. That's the gist of your comment?

"Ask a farmer about crops and CO2" I just linked you to the exact research on the issue. " Droughts don't increase, they move." More gut feelings eh. "Some countries will get better crops, some wil get worse" I just linked you to a peer reviewed summary of the research on the topic. It's a net negative, and with worse effects in the longer term. "CO2 is the major greenhouse gas you fool." CO2 is a greenhouse gas, you confused the greenhouse effect with CO2 being a greenhouse gas. You said "We WANT the greenhouse effect", when clearly what you believe is that more CO2 is a benefit (which I also debunked). You confused one the effects of CO2 with the processes which generate CO2 in the first place.

Ah, sharing the science of your gut feelings is it? Very rigorous. Your gut doesn't beat scientific models which make predictions which have so far agreed with the data (and are also tested by making sure they can predict past changes in the climate too). http://arstechnica.com/science... http://arstechnica.com/science...

" Oh by the way, more CO2, more for plants to breath, better crops."
This is hopelessly naive. Yes, crops can photosynthesise more, but there are other implications on crops and the environment more generally. Specifically, nutrient levels are reduced in tests:
"Effects on human nutrition are likely as well. In FACE experiments, protein concentrations in grains of wheat, rice and barley, and in potato tubers, are decreased by 5â"14% under elevated CO2 (Taub et al. 2008). Crop concentrations of nutritionally important minerals including calcium, magnesium and phosphorus may also be decreased under elevated CO2 (Loladze 2002; Taub & Wang 2008)."
http://www.nature.com/scitable...
so it's a mixed picture. But that isn't the real issue with crops. Some regions may have gains in production, but a larger share will lose production: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessm... pg 488

A major issue for crops is that an increasing frequency of droughts etc is having and will have an increasingly major impact on food supplies:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechan... http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessm...
and those areas affected by droughts will be hit even more (particularly Africa) http://www.epa.gov/climatechan... . Of course, this is still one narrow area of the impacts from climate change.

"We WANT the greenhouse effect."
The greenhouse effect is the warming that follows an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases. You managed to balls that up and confuse it with the increase in CO2.

"Phillip Zimbardo says his study into the lives of 20,000 young men and their relationships with video games and pornography demonstrates that this relatively new phenomenon is affecting the minds of young men. " I see no links to a scientific publication nor any in the independent link. Where is this apparent study actually published? Instead we just seem to have a book for a popular audience.

There is a distinction there surely. Rejecting something because of ignorance isn't scepticism nor is it denial. It's more like idiocy. A person isn't sceptical of atomic physics if they don't know anything about it, they are ignorant on the topic. A person isn't sceptical of climate change if they don't know anything about it, they are ignorant on the topic. If they reject science while being ignorant of it, they are not a denier but rather an idiot, because only an idiot would reject something he hasn't even understood.

The overall concepts are basic aspects of physics, biology and chemistry, so of course there is agreement. " you'll get academics arguing more over exactly how much the temperature will rise in 10 years or precisely what effects" Sure, in all of the sciences various analytical and computational models will have different strengths and weaknesses so there will be differences between them and some discussions about those. There is an agreement on the past warming because that is a measured fact. Further, the models are tested against past data to make sure they work (I've never heard of "skeptics" producing any computational model which actually works against past data). The models must be fairly close to each other because they are compared to the data like in all of science. "arguing more over exactly how much the temperature will rise in 10 years" 10 years is a short amount of time for climate, there are local temporary effects like the El-Nino which can move energy from the sea to air and the La-Nina doing the inverse, thus modifying air temperatures for a short amount of time.

Except no grant depends on it. Scientists are going to study the climate no matter what because understanding and monitoring the climate is very important in many aspects of society.

"How has their position changed?" Concerns about rising costs seem to have come and then faded away with new technology.

" it is true that today it is warmer than it was 500 years ago, and much colder than it was 1,000 years ago." The difference with previous events is now our own emissions are the dominant forcing not natural events.

"Dr Schnieider was warning of the dangers of global cooling" He wrote a paper speculating that the effects of aerosols would be greater than that of global warming. His was a minority view and he was wrong.

"By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people"
Firstly, Ehrlich is a biologist, not a climatologist. Secondly, he was talking about overpopulation, not climate change.

"Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000"
But that's a prediction about the future, not now. Global warming wasn't reverse by the year 2000 and Bangladesh in particular is going to face a lot of difficultly this century.

"Amid predictions that by 2010 the world will need to cope with as many as 50 million people escaping the effects of creeping environmental deterioration, ..." Firstly I have no idea what the actual numbers are escaping drought, famine etc, but I just checked http://www.unep.org/cpi/briefs... . Apparently the predictions were by Norman Myers and unep claims they were never their forecasts. His predictions also don't appear to be mainstream at all. He seemed to have this strange idea that _all_ people just leave a region when there are extreme weather events like droughts when they don't (even in cases of war etc).

"let's throw in our favorite leader of the global warming movement, Al Gore" Al Gore is a politician. A politician is only as reliable as the information he gets and has no particular expertise. "The polar ice caps have actually INCREASED since then, significantly" Nope http://earthobservatory.nasa.g... There is a lot of variability, but the trends are pretty apparent and the lowest extent was in 2012.

Here the Washington post have a visual of the same thing: http://www.washingtonpost.com/... . Again there is variability but the trends are pretty obvious. Nothing to justify saying it would be clear (as far as I can see) by 2013, but the trend is still there.

Edit: Same post but with the formatting fixed.

"Dr Schnieider was warning of the dangers of global cooling" He wrote a paper speculating that the effects of aerosols would be greater than that of global warming. His was a minority view and he was wrong. "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people" Firstly, Ehrlich is a biologist, not a climatologist. Secondly, he was talking about overpopulation, not climate change. "Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000" But that's a prediction about the future, not now. Global warming wasn't reverse by the year 2000 and Bangladesh in particular is going to face a lot of difficultly this century. "Amid predictions that by 2010 the world will need to cope with as many as 50 million people escaping the effects of creeping environmental deterioration, ..." Firstly I have no idea what the actual numbers are escaping drought, famine etc, but I just checked http://www.unep.org/cpi/briefs... . Apparently the predictions were by Norman Myers and unep claims they were never their forecasts. His predictions also don't appear to be mainstream at all. He seemed to have this strange idea that _all_ people just leave a region when there are extreme weather events like droughts when they don't (even in cases of war etc). "let's throw in our favorite leader of the global warming movement, Al Gore" Al Gore is a politician. A politician is only as reliable as the information he gets and has no particular expertise. "The polar ice caps have actually INCREASED since then, significantly" Nope http://earthobservatory.nasa.g... There is a lot of variability, but the trends are pretty apparent and the lowest extent was in 2012. Here the Washington post have a visual of the same thing: http://www.washingtonpost.com/... . Again there is variability but the trends are pretty obvious. Nothing to justify saying it would be clear (as far as I can see) by 2013, but the trend is still there.

"The IPCC predicts a 30cm change in sea levels by ..." Have you intentionally picked the very lowest estimate from the best case scenario in the IPCC? It depends on what scenario happens, whether we deal with reducing emissions or not. At the top edge of the worst case scenario it appears to be 1 metre (slide 10) for example. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/unfccc/... Of course, the sea level rise isn't going to be uniform. As mass is lost from Greenland for example, it means that water levels will not rise as fast in the Arctic. Also, the sea level does not uniformly increase with time, there is short term noise of about half a metre (eye balling the graph on slide 8).

"I expect a large majority of people interested in the Gnome PoS software will not of heard of GNOME, the ones who have will know enough not to be confused by it." Why are you so certain? If someone had told me it uses gnome, i would have assumed it was from GNOME. KDE, XFCE users have heard of GNOME but they don't use it, so they wouldn't know what they interface should be like exactly, especially on a POS device, and it would be, I assume, going to be tech people making the POS acquisitions.

Yes. It's almost a non-story. Courts indicate law needs updating, law gets updating.