It's the equivalent of saying X model of car is absolutely horrible because you don't like the layout of the dash.

Isn't that a perfectly legitimate reason to not buy a car? If you think the car is unattractive or laid out such that it will make things harder for you to do/use you should probably consider other options. If the way you primarily interact with the car (i.e., the dash) doesn't work for you you're probably not going to have a good experience in that car very often, and thus for you at least it is a horrible car.

In fact, isn't the layout of the dash one of the frequently reviewed aspects of cars? I agree with your analogy, but apparently not your conclusion.

As the AC also observed I don't think that discounting an explanation in one specific situation means it never applies, is that actually what you're suggesting? I'd also point out that "no food at home" is only one possible effect of impacts on food production, which will also likely reduce employment in the area (if there are no crops to harvest), and surely it's not controversial to correlate unemployment rate and crime rate, is it?

Well I'm glad you thoroughly debunked the idea that higher temperatures and higher crime rates are in fact correlated.

Of course, this study produced in 1989 before global warming alarmism was really ramped up suggesting this question has been around for a long time (especially considering it sites papers from 1899) includs the following quote:

The studies of geographic region temperature effects on aggression provide impressive support for the temperature-aggression hypothesis.

And are you in fact sure that no AGW supporters commented on the CNN anchor's comment? It didn't seem all that hard to find at least a couple of sites mentioning the topic and suggesting that Bill Nye was polite enough not to mention the absurd segue question.

Whether the droughts are in fact related to global warming or not, farmers in California may disagree with your point. For many, their ability to produce food this year at least is very definitely down (and I've seen the effects in grocery stores in the north east). Net production may be up, but that has no bearing on whether it is down in specific areas where crime may go up. That's of course the point of my observation that some places will have production go up and some will have it go down.

I don't think it should be surprising if changes in climate affect the behavior of people in areas. If food becomes more plentiful I bet crime goes down. If food and water become more scarce I bet it goes up. If the weather patterns are changing surely some areas are going to get drier and some are going to get wetter. Also, as events become more extreme all the extreme weather events you sited are likely to happen more often too, don't you think? So you're right, global warming almost certainly is doing all those things.

I don't see why it's controversial to think that. Even if you don't think people have anything to do with changing climate all those effects are obvious outcomes of it changing, and I don't think many people actually doubt that it is changing.

Apparently the concept of making all weather more extreme has been lost here. That would mean winter storms will be more extreme as well. Perhaps it's hard to imagine why global warming would make more snow in some areas, but failures of some people's imagination doesn't make something less true.

Also, if we're talking about the gravy train, don't the people emitting greenhouse gasses have a much larger financial stake than the scientists researching it? I doubt all the climate research funding world wide was equal to even Exxon's profits last year.

Sure, if those agencies working on it asked for help or followed best practices that are recommend by NSA and others. I suspect neither of those things happened. The NSA doesn't generally barge into other efforts and demand they do it their way, uh, well, at least the defensive side of the house doesn't.

They do that. There are 2 sides to the NSA, and one of them does what you suggest, but not only with government. They're the ones that helped produce SE Linux after all.

I don't think that CS brought about the advent of "nerds" nor that engineers were exempt from that label in the past. I'd actually see your EE tale as entirely compatible with the CS situation, not a counter example.

The line about the "type of boys" is somewhat disingenuous I think. It's not unreasonable for someone to recognize that a group is likely to make life harder for your or generally less enjoyable and want to avoid that group. If that group is overrepresented in a particular field, it's not unreasonable to avoid that field. Even the first comment, it's not that there are no decent guys in CS, but if they are underrepresented then their presence may be of little comfort when deciding whether being in that class will make you happier or not. This is especially so when weighing other options where you may find that people who will be nice to you are more highly represented. It's not only women who do this, I suspect we all do to varying degrees, and probably not always consciously.

They can be influential in certain spheres even while not in others.

Sure, but the same arguments can be made for people donating blood. You might want to check out what actually happens when you pay people for blood rather than leave it as a civic duty some people feel compelled to do.

For example, see this NIH study talking about the effects on blood donation. It includes the following quote "There is a serious concern over using incentives in blood donations even on a temporary basis. That concern is based on the findings that using incentives may attract at-risk donors, and worse undermine the motivation to donate blood." and also

Using incentives for blood donation may undermine the altruistic motivation to donate blood. This concern has always existed after Titmuss study in 1971. He believed that commercializing the altruistic setting in blood donation has crowding-out effect on the number of blood donors.[23] Since then, several economic and psychological studies have shown the same results and proved that incentives have negative effects on prosocial behaviors like blood donation.

Given that, it seems like it is reasonable to ask whether the assertion that it will increase supply is well founded.

If you get the Pro version it has realtime protection, but that's not free.

Banks (well, most at least) don't have a monopoly on dollars. If you can find some random guy on the net to give you the dollars to buy a house you wouldn't need to deal with a bank either.

You'd probably need to review the TOS and EULAs you agreed to along the way. It's fairly likely that we've all given permission to use our personal information in exchange for using services like Google or Yahoo etc. If we gave them permission then they haven't done anything without our permission and thus haven't broken then law, right?