I'm sorry, but this sentiment makes very little sense. If they'd already grown them, they'd sell them - unless your suggesting that shipping alone is more expensive than the supermarket price, and if that was the case how does any one sell anything? In fact, if a farmer is unable to finance growing crops, the land will lie fallow, the ground will improve, and it will be of benefit to hedgerow and native wildlife.

But these people weren't dying before, they were just malaria stricken, starving, and having the clothes stolen off their backs by their own government. That's clearly a much better state of affairs.

They should never have had the information available to make choices for themselves - they were much better off being kicked around.

Sorry? The idea of global warming wasn't seriously floated until the late 80s. I don't want to tout Global Cooling, but the models from the 60s and 70s (If they even had the power to model accurately, which I suspect is a fallacy right there), would have absolutely no bearing on models now. You can see that by the massive changes in predictions from the late 80s to date - are you implying that the models from the 70s were right, with the modern ones wrong? Are you somehow implying that two vastly different conclusions are simultaneously right? Or are you pulling a chunk of text out of your backside in an attempt to seem intelligent?

There is a very large difference between climate models and artillery shells. Climate is inherently chaotic, at least to a certain degree. Artillery is not, its a very basic equation. While I would not suggest that predicting the course of climate is impossible, it is certainly very very difficult.

As to your first two "facts", historical stratospheric cooling was a result of ozone depletion, not climate change, and polar amplification was not seriously considered till the start of the millenium, and certainly not seriously recognised before that point.

So in conclusion, thats a definite [citation needed] to earn that 5 informative.

I think you've really missed the thrust of the arguement. The lack of belief in a god is not the suggestion - in fact that would not qualify as atheism, more agnosticism (which is what I personally subscribe to). Instead, he's commenting on a fervent belief in a lack of God. Not only has that belief been displayed here by h4rr4r, but he has also shown many other tenets of religon, such as the statement that his unprovable belief is somehow more correct that someone elses (see point 3 of the op).

Remember lack of belief in God =/= belief in a lack of God.

Indeed, I suppose it depends how we define it. But on population alone it is extremly close - South Asia and the Antipideans have a higher population than the rest of Asia (excluding the middle east of course). North America and the UK have a higher population than the rest of Europe. With a very brief back of the envelope calculation I put civil law somewhere between 100 and 200 million ahead (it could be more, the break up of Africa is difficult to estimate from that map).

Now applying to the rest of the world - ie not france, we can see that it is extremly close.

If we also consider that a large population in South East Asia, rural China and parts of South America are less likely to have internet than some of the common law locations, its quite likely, from an internet point of view, that the rest of the world is majority common law.

So every drug trafficking crime gets reported? You have to remember that most of the profitable crimes - vice, drugs, gambling, smuggling... don't have a victim in the classical sense. No one will report them because everyone is complicit. I'm sure there are plenty of intelligent drug smugglers. How about Mr nice for one?