a possible arms race that could lead to a nuclear war

Yeah. For the clarity to other readers, this statement is not supported by any logic nor by any argument. It is just that "some analysts" (i.e. probably some dude the author met in a pub) say that something could lead to "nuclear escalation". It is there to attract eye balls and clicks. Now that we have agreed that the whole talk about "nuclear war" or "nuclear escalation", we can focus on discussing this pretty cool sounding hypersonic weaponry stuff.

Please make even some rudimentary research before posting stuff like this. I know that social mobility is not that large in US but to imply that Mr. Thiel doesn't owe his fortune to his smarts and character is just silly. He's been making good bet pretty consistently, been optimistic about future and exemplary in his way of trying to achieve something by his own work. You can disagree with him on certain matters but if you are willing to read what he writes, you will have to admit that he's pretty smart guy. Also, his family was just a normal middle class family with father doing chemical engineering.

Good to know. Would be so kind and tell us what these solutions are and how the wealthy are stopping us from putting them in practice.

And then a note to everyone modding parent Insightful: I know that you are having your monthly Let's Blame It on Rich field day here. But I think that you could even try to pretend to have an intelligent discussion here. Like if someone says "I don't think there are solutions" then an answer saying "Yes there is but rich folk are not allowing them" does not count as a constructive discussion.

It is well documented that climate science circles are small and papers with a right conclusions are easier to publish as papers with the wrong conclusions.

The fact that in your field the process works well, does not mean that it works well in another fields.

This is just patently false.

James Hansen, one of the leading scientist sitting on top of the time series, called for trials of energy company executives for "high crimes against humanity and nature". When a human commits himself to such political ambitions, it becomes much harder to objectively accept position which would undermine the strong political stand he's taking.

Or how about the personification of "climate scientist", Michael Mann? Well, he refers to his fellow scientist who are not sharing his preconceived opinions as "not helping the cause".

These examples does not speak about scientists excising scepticism but more like political activists doing group thinking.

Sir, your abominable messages equating gay sex to bestiality have to stop. I understand that you try to convince others of normalcy of gay sex by comparing it to your personal experiences having sex with goats. Nevertheless, we feel that it is offensive and moderators are right to continue to mod down your vile messages.

Or did I mean to say that they might down vote you if you just rant and harp about your own point of view without listening anyone. Telling others to "STFU" is not constructive messaging.

I can't remember but do carry on.

You are not being completely honest here. Let's be precise here: They didn't speak out opposing his viewpoint. They spoke out against the person making the point. Not only didn't they try to convince anyone about their views, they singled out one person to be bullied and harassed.

And bullied and harassed they did basically attacking the employee of the said person forcing them to fire him. Nice job.

Bear in mind that these actions that you are fine with are nothing more than actions trying to stifle political discussion by harassing individuals. Giving campaign contributions that target in convincing others about a certain view (even an objectionable view) is different from harassing individuals. The first adds to discussion, the latter removes from it.

Everybody! Ignore this guy with stupid facts and continue with killer mutant dolphin jokes!

You obviously haven't followed Stephen McIntyre's never ending battles with Michael Mann and other luminaries in climate science community. Basically what we have is somewhat vague scientific literature and concentrated effort to hide the data and the details of methods.

What really bugs me about US Military and US population in general is the speak. They constantly speak that their military is "defending their freedom". That is utter bullshit as US military is waging offensive wars.

I disagree. The husband of Paula Broadwell (the 'afairee' as you put it) has the right to know that his wife is seriously two-timing him. If this getting this public is the only way of getting the word to him then so be it.

The director of CIA should not put himself in a position where he can be blackmailed. This is such a basic stuff that I'm willing to guess that CIA has a policy on this.

That is just bullshit.

First, there is no great conspiracy of evil "fossil fuel lobby".

Second, fossil fuels are the friend of the poor. It is Al Gore and other obnoxiously rich people who can afford their electricity bill to threefold without any impact to their lifestyle. Make no mistake about it: If the solutions that are on the table for solving the global warming are implemented, it is the poor who will see their level of confort plummeting. They probably won't be able to afford such luxuries as private automobiles. Meanwhile Al Gore will be still living in his air conditioned castles while flying between them with his private jet.

Even for Pandas? So you are saying that Pandas are basically cool but the game sucks otherwise? I seriously thought that adding Pandas was a bad case of jumping the shark. Well, maybe I just need to admit it to my self: I'm totally out of touch with gamers today. Now if you excuse me, I'll go and find rumors about Football Manager 2013 which I will eventually buy but won't find time to play.

No fucking clue. Ask Amazon.