The problem is that it is almost impossible to prove that nobody thinks that signing an agreement is all that needs to be done, because to do so I would have to provide statements from every single one of those people.

However, you can disprove me in an instant by showing a single statement where someone makes such a daft claim. The one link that you did provide did not show this, as it discussed the further actions that were required beyond just making an agreement. It really is a demonstration of my claim.

Once again, this is an irrelevant argument designed to confuse the issue without having to actually make a claim that needs defending. It is the perfect strategy for the denialist movement. It can be stated in a single sentence, and people think that it is funny to do so. It is the same technique that advertisers use to create brand awareness. But have no doubt that it is a cynical ploy to capture people's imagination when facts can't be used.

The reason why there are multiple names for this is that the average person doesn't understand the difference between global warming and local warming. It if is a cold winter then they think that the globe must be cooler, when it may just be a symptom of a more active climate moving air from the cooler parts of the world to where they are.

It is not that warming was the wrong word to use, as you claim. Neither is the word change, because if it is warming then it must be changing. Climate disruption is not a common term for this, I don't think that it will catch on because it is stupid.

Damn it, I forgot to add the line to my post that your linked article wasn't proof of your claim because it actually did go on to state what needed to be done to tackle the problem. It was not simply a case of "sign the agreement and that's it".

Well you are the one who made the original claim without any evidence, so surely you should judge your own post in the same way. Why not produce a link where someone says that signing an agreement is all that needs to be done to fix climate change. I am happy to be proven wrong.

That assumes that the politicians have stated that this problem can be solved with one action (in this case the signing of an agreement). It may be that they know that an international agreement must occur as a first step in a long process that requires the various countries keep a dialogue going.

Ah yes, the old "they made a new name, therefore it must be wrong" argument (as if that makes any difference). I wonder why the same people who complain about this don't also come out to question why the denialists now claim that the warming has stopped since 1998 when they used to say that the climate had been cooling since that date. That change of wording seems to have gone unnoticed, and yet it is very telling that the original statement was incorrect and that the climate is still getting warmer.

I'm sure that in years to come when the records continue to be broken with higher temperatures that the "proof" that global warming is wrong will be conveniently forgotten, as those self-proclaimed sceptics will find some other tiny detail to use to justify their desire to postpone any action regarding the climate as long as possible.

The GMO example is probably the best one so far. It is a claim that does go against most of the science, and I imagine is more likely to be a partisan argument. I doubt that even a large minority of Democrats would ever state this though, so in that respect it is not the perfect example.

I still think that the Republican/GW example is the best one, easily beating the Democrat/GMO and Republican/evolution choices. The implication that there is some agenda in selecting it is unwarranted.

I don't think that those examples are anywhere near as apt as the global warming one. For one, these do not have such overwhelming scientific backing. Secondly, they are not as often quoted by the politicians.

Finally, they are overly-specific claims. The "more guns, less crime" claim misleads the gun control aims in that they are attempting to reduce the gun-related murders. Nobody claims that scepticism is a bad thing, but denialism dressed up as scepticism is. And all economies can fail, but few politicians advocate such a simplistic economy.

Are you seriously saying that every single scientific study that matches the Global Warming theory has had their numbers fudged? How do you know? If you are given any random article from a journal, can you point to the data that has been altered to fit the theory?

If not, the perhaps the alleged fudging isn't as blatant - or as widespread - as you suggest. It could be that it is only obvious that the data is bunk if you come at it from the assumption that all the global warming theories are false; in which case you are obviously a perfect match for what this story is all about.

What is its opposite to which you refer? If you are looking for an example of people disbelieving science when it conflicts with their own religious or political views, what is the scientific doctrine that Democrats typically reject?

Perhaps this is another demonstration of the media's left wing bias that does not stand up to scrutiny.

You kinda got it right. Corporate social networks are there to promote the distribution of information. But for God's sake, do NOT call them "Facebook for the Enterprise", "Enterprise Social Network", or anything like it. Do not mention enterprise, do not mention facebook, twitter, instagram, or any other idiotic time killer. Call it what you want - "Acme's place for Engineers to comment on feature update requests from PMs", "Worldwide Information Sharing Platform", just don't use the Facebook analogy.

Second, employees are asking for tools to better share information. Sharing your latest beer run or cake social pictures is not information. Sales people want to know if someone knows someone at corp A, where they just got a meeting for. Support people want to know if anyone has seen weird behavior x that isn't documented anywhere, and hasn't been tagged in a case yet. Others want to know if there are some good presentations on a topic so that they don't have to create them by hand, or just want to get in touch with someone in a particular position but who they have never met. An enterprise social network helps that.

Here's the third issue, and this is where most corporate social networks fall down. It has to be used by the execs, and the execs have to show to everyone how to use it right. If they start posting pictures of their latest executive retreat where everyone has a Margarita in hand, or they start to talk about what movie they saw over the weekend, shit will irretrievably go in the shitter. Lack of adoption of a corporate social network is always and every time the fault of the corporate leaders. Whether the execs, or just the people everyone wants to listen to.

What's the problem with knowing that someone got charged for assault in a case that is very understandable?

The right to be forgotten is a terrible solution to the problem of people not being able to judge others properly.

No, not personal data. PRIVATE data. Plus, Google is handling other companies' data that has been put by them onto the public internet. Why the fuck is Google responsible for what is in it? Are you going to blame trash collectors for what people throw out on the highway?

You don't understand statistics very well, do you? Or how actuarial tables work.

T-mobile refunds the last 2 years of cellphone service to all customers past and present.

That would be fair and just.