I'm sorry, are you suggesting that a link to a Youtube video of a self-published and self-publicising "mens movement" crank interviewing a liar and fossil-fuel industry shill is a scientific citation? I had something more traditional in mind - you know, links to original peer-reviewed research.
I retract my previous assertion. Folks like you aren't remotely interested in the truth when it might impinge upon your own cuddly childish fantasy world. Grow up.

Please cite this new science. Or are scientific journals now part of the "legacy mainstream media"? People like you give even dumb ignorance a bad name.

No friend, you are flat-out wrong. No such debunking has taken place (care to provide even one citation?). Global temperatures have indeed risen in the last hundred years, and faster in the last 50 than in all of recorded history. See https://xkcd.com/1732/ for an excellent easy-to-read chart. Given even optimistic scenarios more rise is already unavoidably locked in. Rising temperatures caused by human emissions is a real effect, is unprecedented in its speed compared to natural variation, and is a big problem.

I'm not sure who you're charging with hypocrisy, but as someone who thought the Occupy movement at best quixotic and at worst simplistic, self-indulgent, and borderline antisemitic, I'm certainly not going to wear that one. The problem here, as with every one of Trump's positions, is that he's consistently proven himself shamelessly willing to both contradict himself without apology and also to play the man ("bankers") and not the ball ("the banking system"), appealing to both naked prejudice as well as legitimate grievance. And that delegitimizes his presidency, morally if not legally: until recently it's been an almost universally accepted if unspoken rule in American politics that you don't appeal to bigotry just to win. If both sides agree to play by that rule then neither political side gains an advantage, and society wins because repugnant beliefs are marginalized. Sure, racists are gonna vote anyway, but if a racist card isn't on the table then they're gonna vote on the real issues, as they should, and may the best candidate win. But under the new Trump rules, apparently it's ok to appeal to bigots directly. Sure, you walk back your initial extreme position later, and collect the votes of plenty of decent folks, but never exactly disown the original one. And happily pocket the original hater votes too, and win.
Lots of Trump voters here saying this victory wasn't all about hatred, racism and sexism. I agree; 49% of American voters can't be hateful racists, boastful sexual predators, or Putin apologists for that matter. But maybe 2% are, or 3% or 5%, and I know who they voted for, because Donald encouraged them, and never disowned them. And if he needed those votes to win, well then he didn't deserve it. Remember what those exact same folks said about Muslims, that not all Muslims are terrorists but 100% of terrorists are Muslim (which was never true, but anyway)? Well, now we know that not all Trump voters are Klan members but 100% of Klan members were certainly Trump voters, so they're all tarnished in my books until I hear some loud and heartfelt repudiation of every fucked-up thing Trump ever said. But I'm not holding my breath.

No.

Yes, this was republished today from wikileaks twitter account, trying desperately not to look like bad guys now that they've played a hand in getting Trump in. But it's barely news, let alone scandalous. It's a perfectly legitimate strategy that I'm 100% certain the Republicans followed too (If you want amateur examples from this very forum, look back at all the faux-love Bernie got from Trumpeters like Okian Warrior et al, once it became clear that Hilary was DNC choice - a pure divide-and-conquer play). If you want real hard-core sanctimonious apologia from wikileaks though you should check out Assange's piece here. To summarize: "I only publishes whats I gets and my Russian handlers didn't give me anything damaging on Trump, so... I no publish anything". If you think that Russian handlers thing is a stretch, read what Nadya Tolokno has to say about it.

Ahahahahahaha... good one! He hasn't even picked up the keys yet and the excuses have started already! "It was like this when I got it!" "The other guy reversed into me!" "Some damn kids took it for a joyride!" The R's will have presidency and both houses and you STILL want to lower expectations for success because... "the Fed's bubble?" Don't forget the Jewish bankers, and illegal Mexicans, and I dunno, why not the liberal media too. They're all out there right now, working against America's success, just to spite Trump voters. How about we judge the guy at the end of his term by the same big-kids standards that every other president has been judged... on his record. I'll check back with you in four years. Best of luck.

Well, ignorant wealthy old white dude wins US presidency on the back of exaggerated hopes-and-fears based campaign... I don't really see what's surprising or new here. Appalling, certainly. Surprising, no.

You make some accurate and yet irrelevant rhetorical criticism while missing (or ignoring) the point. Consider responding directly to your interlocutor's arguments with a less patronizing, more emotive style, I think you'll find people are less likely to mistake you for an asshat.

Coming from the exact same group of people that threw the old buggy-whip makers argument in the face of cab drivers, this is too much. Yep, times change alright: and now they've changed against you. Seriously, what did you expect from Über?. And, you know, it's not like it's been a big secret that this was the long term plan.
Dear drivers;
Thank you for funding our autonomous vehicle research. Bye now.
Yours very sincerely,
T K

Ascribing particular states of mind to me might well make your points easier for you to make, but it doesn't make them any good. I don't dislike Larry Wall — I've never met him — although I certainly think he says some silly things, and I don't care at all for the language that he wrote. And although I like Python I haven't used it in my day job for several years now; my workplace is a Groovy/Java/Scala shop.

Because I understand that despite what you seem to think, the technical challenges involved in language choice for larger software projects are about 1% "does the syntax of language x allow me to do y in this particularly neat way?" and 99% "how many keen programmers skilled in language x do I have/can I attract right now? how quickly can I bring a keen programmer unskilled in x up to speed? how performant, reliable and documented is the core language? how performant, reliable and documented are the 3rd-party libraries available for my problem domain? is there good 3rd party support in the form of testing, build tools, CI, IDE's, profiling tools, version control integration? will my codebase be maintainable by the current crew let alone new hires in 1 year? 5 years? 10?". Honestly if you think Perl is a legit contender in any of those fields against any of the language offerings from Oracle, Microsoft, Apple or Google you really need to get out more.

In the obvious trivial way all Turing-complete languages are "technically" equivalent in the limited sense that you want that word to mean, so there's really no point wasting time having the argument I imagine you want to have with me that goes like this: me: "oh, but Perl doesn't have such-and-such a feature" you: "of COURSE it does, you just cross the index and middle fingers of your left hand and recite the last verse of Genesis backwards!". I imagine I could have the same argument with a bash guru. FWIW even ignoring the to-my-eye horrendous syntax, the fact that for 25 years Perl evangelists have sung the praises of a language that has had such (ahem) eccentricities as braindead function declarations, lets-have-dynamic-typing-but-also-sigils, bolt-on-OO, a toy REPL, "my this our that" namespacing wtf, awful multidimensional data structures, idiosyncratic libraries ((badly) parsing XML to native datatypes, really?), ugly reference syntax (beating even C++ for homeliness, a miracle!), all the time hilariously making a big song-and-dance about "Easy things are easy" and "the principle of least astonishment" does not to my mind inspire confidence that those folks actually know what any other languages look like. 'Easy' isn't having a character-saving shortcut for some marginal use-case, it's having a language transparent enough that I get excited about the results and not how I got there. And that to me is the kicker - with all the language choices out there now, why are there so few significant new non-hobby projects being started in Perl? Clue... the answer is not "because kids are all stupid these days".

Spoken like someone who's never managed a software development project bigger than themselves.

Of course it's a technical problem. Why buy into a tool and ecosystem with warts that piss more people off than the next tool's?

Folks like me? No-one in the Perl community was ever mean to me. But I had half a dozen languages under the belt before I had the need for a quick-n-dirty scripting language in the mid 90's and fairly quickly made what I'm happy to this day to call an astute technical judgement that a language and community that was so ostentatiously opinionated would be a risky choice for team work; to say nothing of the languages's technical deficiencies at that time. It wasn't a hard decision. If you want to drive The Homer and gloat online about the fur-lined glove compartment that's fine by me. I'll take the fleet of Camrys and have fun going cool places with the team.

Respect where it's due for Perl's historical achievements - I've hacked enough HGP Perl scripts to know what's what - but they're not per se an argument in favour of using that tool now - any more than the existence of the pyramids are an argument for indentured labour. My problem is (and always has been) that Larry Has Opinions. And lots of those are expressed in such a heavy-handed manner: the language syntax, the intrusive keywords, the proudly gnomic and condescending tone that early on propagated down through Perl user groups, that they are off-putting for anyone that doesn't happen to want to join the club. Which would be a pity if there were no other good options out there, but... there are plenty! And they're not hanging shit on Perl because... why bother? So folks have voted with their feet. Frankly I read a lot of Wall's comments in that interview as the posturing of the second-smartest-kid-at-school. Smart, just not smart enough to shut up long enough for the other kids to get to like him.