A complete rhetorical toolbox should have more options than just logical arguments or expletive insults. Especially since the argument that you're making isn't purely logical. True that proving the existence and causes of global warming is a purely logical and scientific argument. But determining the effect of global warming on human society is speculative, at best. And asking people do something about it is a political, economic and emotional issue. You need to make your arguments on those terms or your cause will fail.

You're still not making a case for why a pharmacist is needed. Lethal drug combinations and be checked against a database. Immunizations can be done by a nurse. Making judgement calls on "over-serving" a prescription is exactly what every bartender is required to do. Where is the critical thinking that merits a six figure job?

Oh great educated one, please inform me of the mathematical formula to assess the accuracy of a prediction that didn't come to pass?

SpaceX already has several government contracts; notably delivering supplies to the ISS.

That's just factually incorrect

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/re...

Next you're going to argue that he earned that through activities unrelated to global warming. But maintaining a high profile is half the game to getting on all those boards. And global warming is how Al Gore maintains his high profile. Apple sure didn't hire him for his insight into circuit board layouts.

I see you don't let reading comprehension slow you down on jumping to conclusions.

Its funny how people like you manage to be pompous and dismissive despite being on the losing side. Do you think AGW is a real threat? Do you think that policy should be enacted to counter it? Then you need to get off your high horse and address the concerns of the people opposed to you. Calling people "fuckwits" isn't exactly the convincing logical argument that you think it is.

Bringing up Al Gore does prove something. That there exists powerful people who have exaggerated the impact of climate change in order to accumulate further power and wealth. Of course, this doesn't change any scientific facts, but its an important consideration when evaluating any proposed policy changes.

You remind me of the joke where a physicist tries to predict horse races by modelling the horses as solid sphere moving through a vacuum. Those tests are sufficient for a uniform body within a glass jar. As soon as you add water (in all of its phases and conditions), minerals, plants and everything else that makes Earth interesting, the conditions are must be tested become much more complicated.

I don't know how hard it is. But many types of vehicles are required to stop at all train crossings, so having the first generation of autonomous cars do the same isn't a big deal.

Are we to seriously believe Nevada thought it was entirely acceptable for the vehicle to come to a complete standstill in construction traffic?

Why wouldn't that be entirely acceptable? A construction zone means that traffic can come to complete standstill at any time, even on the freeway. Having autonomous cars momentarily stop and switch to manual control shouldn't be any more of a problem than other impediments due to construction.

The roundabout is the only one that's a show stopper. The other three are exactly the kind of circumstances where it would be reasonable for the car to come to a stop and switch to manual control.

That's a nice theory, but what really happens is that the patent troll just steam rolls the little guy instead of the manufacturer. At least the manufacturer produces some goods that have a benefit to society has a whole.

NATO did not agree to defend to Ukraine. In the Budapest Memorandum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B..., Russia, the US and the UK agreed to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and refrain from interfering with their internal affairs in exchange for nuclear disarmament. But there was no provision for providing for Ukraine's defense. Now, arguably, Russia may have broken that agreement, but there's no provision for enforcing the treaty either.

I guess that makes it ok to provoke just a *little* nuclear exchange. I assume that you're willing to sacrifice the state or country that you live in for this noble cause?