Minimum wages are anti-Libertarian, and thus, anti-free state project.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Another myth spread by the organic foods industry. Top Five Myths Of Genetically Modified Seeds, Busted
Myth 1: Seeds from GMOs are sterile.
Myth 2: Monsanto will sue you for growing their patented GMOs if traces of those GMOs entered your fields through wind-blown pollen.
Myth 3: Any contamination with GMOs makes organic food non-organic.
Myth 4: Before Monsanto got in the way, farmers typically saved their seeds and re-used them. By the time Monsanto got into the seed business, most farmers in the U.S. and Europe were already relying on seed that they bought every year from older seed companies. This is especially true of corn farmers, who've been growing almost exclusively commercial hybrids for more than half a century. (If you re-plant seeds from hybrids, you get a mixture of inferior varieties.) But even soybean and cotton farmers who don't grow hybrids were moving in that direction. This shift started with the rise of commercial seed companies, not the advent of genetic engineering. But Monsanto and GMOs certainly accelerated the trend drastically.
Myth 5: Most seeds these days are genetically modified.

I think the question should be what is the most misused fallacy on the Internet. I think the twin winners are ad hominem and argument from authority. Especially argument from authority. If the person is a legitimate authority on the subject then referring to them is NOT argument from authority.

It's not. All those fossil fuels, and we're just starting to burn them, have been living biological stuff before. Before they were, the C they contain was in the atmosphere as CO2.

Different kind of Carbon which is how we can tell the increase is from fossil fuels. You might also want to think about the difference in timeframes. It took millions of years to remove the carbon, but we have replaced it in less than 100 years.

I want people to be successful and find their own paths to happiness in life.

And there is nothing about providing a free education for everyone interferes with your plan or theirs. In fact, providing resources for everyone, such as education without cost to them, makes for more happiness instead of less. There was nothing in geekoids presentation about making people get an education or saying which education they had to get. Your argument fails.

I've said for years the real money lies in being a welder, plumber, or an electrician.

Only until the market gluts. Once there are enough people then there will be too many and the jobs will drop in wages. The article says that 200,000 jobs go unfilled, but if 1,000,000 people were available then the jobs would pay crap. It's the way the market works. Supply and demand.

Blacks move in, whites move out, city turns to hellhole.

Hmmm. Maybe if those white people weren't such racists asses that they react to black people by running away the place would be different.

It struck me as wry humor that the "trends of society" (c) mannikin carries a gun...

Please, please stay away from me in a firefight. You can't tell the difference between a power driver and a gun.

Very few places will suddenly lose all value. They will just lose value for farming a specific crop. It may case a crop change, or change to ranching, or perhaps natural gas fracking...

Inhospitable desert land is so the rage these days. Everyone wants to live in the desert. Wait. No, they don't. You do realize that the closer you get to the poles the less land area exists for people to live on. This means less land area for people to live and for people to grow food on and for people. You also don't seem to consider, like most, the economic costs of turning that land into useful places for people to grow. How much would it cost to turn the forests of Canada into farmland and living area? Imagine trying to fit 630,000,000 people, the populations of the United States/Mexico/Central America/Caribbean, into the land of Canada. Do you think Canada, or Greenland, will be interested in just welcoming all the displaced people into their national borders? Of course, I'm sure that everyone will just cooperate and say come on in. Or will they say we don't want your kind here and say no. What ya gonna do then? Invade? Become an illegal immigrant? Tell me again who the cost of making changes now will be more expensive and less conflict causing than changing our habits now.

Gore's Law within two posts. Good Job.

As an online climate change debate grows longer, the probability that denier arguments will descend into attacks on Al Gore approaches one.

Gore's Law

You won't have any trouble getting your fill then. The vast majority of sci-fi is depressing, dark and dystopian. The great thing about Star Trek, at least with TOS and TNG, was the optimism, but DS9, Voyager, Enterprise and every movie except The Motion Picture and The Voyage Home were simply more war movies in space. Just like 95% of the sci-fi available now.

Your entire rant is based on the premise that the Bush adminstration was so much better. They started the secret surveillance, but Obama gets the blame because he is still using it. Do you not see the cognitive dissonance here? I sure do.

Or use them to feed your tilapia or other aquaponically raised fish.

I think a major problem when discussing science versus religion is that people allow synonymous words to become equivalent words. There is a lot of difference in meaning between acceptance, admission, assent, assumption, assurance, avowal, axiom, certainty, conclusion, confidence, conjecture, conviction, credence, credit, deduction, divination, expectation, faith, fancy, feeling, guess, hope, hypothesis, idea, impression, intuition, judgment, knowledge, mind, mindset, notion, opinion, persuasion, position, postulation, presumption, presupposition, profession, reliance, supposition, surmise, suspicion, theorem, theory, thesis, thinking, trust, understanding and view which are all synonyms for belief. However, religious people want to make them absolutely equivalent. I have confidence, conviction, reliance, trust and understanding in the mechanisms and results of science, but that doesn't mean I believe in them. It also doesn't mean that my belief in science, if you want to use the term, is the same as a religious followers belief in their imaginary mechanisms and motivators. Not even in the same ball park with regards to evidence.

What part of cause and symptoms don't you people get? Global warming is the cause and the symptoms are climate change. It isn't a matter of one or the other. It's a matter of cause and effect. Then again, that is science and not wishful thinking which is what global warming>>climate change denial is all about. It might do you good to start paying attention to scientist and not economist. politicians and lawyers.