How is it extremely unlikely? What evidence are you talking about?

It's not an intolerance of all forms of intolerance everywhere. That's a ridiculous strawman.

Your argument is like saying it's hypocritical not to eat people just because you eat potatoes.

Follow your statements through to their logical conclusion.

If marriage isn't a right, straight or gay, then a government which grants privileges only to straight marriage and not to gay marriage is unfair discrimination.

What relevance does that have?

See, this is a legitimate complaint. Get this fixed. Where are those laws?

You are confused about what homeopathy means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.... Homeopathic medicine is very specifically not medicine.

You are thinking of traditional medicine. Which is, indeed, not 100% hogwash (not 0% either).

It's just arbitrary. Might as well label something as made by people with princess leia hair. I'm pretty sure there's no proven harm, but I would oppose a label for that.

Agitate for people to label things as non-GMO. That's what you really want anyway. When you go to the store for milk you don't check each liquid vessel to exclude the ones that contain traces of apple, orange, alcohol, etc.., you go for milk. If you want something that contains no GMO, then ask for no-GMO labels (and enforce truth-in-advertising laws).

Here is an actual point. However, labelling isn't likely to solve that, you'd have to completely ban them. I'm extremely skeptical that we are worse off, but I'm willing to hear more. So far it looks just like the same "Red Queen's Race" evolution has always provided.

Stamping Kosher is like stamping something non-GMO. Stamping GMO is like stamping non-Kosher. Jews absolutely do not get foodstuffs stamped "this is not Kosher". It's 100% beef far more often than it's 0% pork.

If you require that you only eat non-GMO food, then get food stamped as non-GMO. I will support *that* stamp. If that stamp is not legally defensible, then you have a legitimate grievance. I support mandatory labelling of known health consequences (like nutritional information), and I support trust-in-advertising laws that say if you label something non-GMO it better not have GMO products in it. I do not support mandatory labelling of the arbitrarily large list of things that have no known health consequences, but which some people may believe have health consequences.

I don't think I've ever heard of a subculture that specifically tries to buy only GMO food, the way Jews go for Kosher food. Although I have to admit I sometimes hesitate when I see an organic label on something, and think "would this be organic anyway and they are just putting it on the label because it sells, or did they make some compromise that I wouldn't have wanted them to make just so they could add this logo".

Might as well ask why we don't mandatorily label things as containing products harvested using John Deere. They should be proud to stamp their box with "JOHN DEERE HARVESTED FOOD" for all the world to see, if there's no harm and no fear of harm from John Deere harvesters.

You think the signal to noise ratio would be improved by less granularity?

I wouldn't take 25 degrees C as the target room temperature.

I would rather use room temperature as the target room temperature: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

You probably come from somewhere warm if you take 25 C as a target. Someone from somewhere cold might be perfectly comfortable going less than room temperature (and also wearing a sweater -- you can bundle yourself up to a greater than you can strip down).

You should also note that indoors is already warmer than the outdoors due both to waste heat from electric equipment and the humans inside, combined with the insulation (which tends to be much higher in cold places).

The other consideration here is it's simply easier to heat with alternative energy sources. Such as wood. Right now my heating and A/C are on the fritz due to some water damage and I'm using a wood fireplace.

The counter here would be that sources like solar are also more fruitful on warm days.

This said, I am aware of the recent findings that, at least in the US, heating tends to be more energy expensive than cooling. That's even easier to believe if you're all cranking it to 25.

Is the summary wrong then, or incomplete?

Gas heating is burning fossil fuels in any form.

The guy you are talking to was resisting somebody who claimed all tests were 100% about control. I don't get why you're arguing against him. He's on your side.

Gravy train? Retired and comfy?

How much money do you think CERN researchers make?

Really?

I mean this honestly -- is that common at all? I literally don't understand how that could be a breach of privacy. And even if it is, how could it not be the least of the privacy violations here.

Maybe if you're testing rote memorization of facts. But climate change is a math / science question.

If you have a math test that is set appropriately to test you, then some questions should be right at your limit. In fact, a properly administered test at the end of a University course of either math or a math-heavy science course is very likely to end with many people being *almost* right but having a key error.

If you don't have experience with this, then you've never been appropriately tested. I don't care how smart you are.

You're basically saying you've never in your life been wrong about anything. It's just ridiculous.

Irony overload.

First of all, you actually have the same problem he's talking about -- an inability to tell the difference. I thought the first AC making fun of Republicans was being ridiculous but you're a great example of what he was talking about.

Second, you're referencing "Bush Lied People Died", which was a case where people doggedly insisted that Bush lied (instead of him behaving, perhaps poorly or inappropriately, but nevertheless honestly reacting to the legitimate information he had). You're talking about somebody still yelling that. For pointing out that making an incorrect prediction isn't lying, nor does it mean that no prediction you ever make will ever hold.