So you agree that the only true scientific debate here is on the debunk-the-book side. But you're irritated that 100 researchers are motivated to agree with that. And you're also defending Time Cube guy? If someone spent time debunking that, you'd be morally offended? Your point is so murky I seriously can't tell what it is. You must have some convoluted tangle of beliefs that I can't even begin to visualize.

"...most science is now funded by governments with an intense need to have AGW true so they can enact policies they really, really want to implement."

Ludicrously insane. Explicate these supposed policies and why they'd supposedly want to implement them sans global warming. Contrast with the political will on the side of energy companies and big oil with enormous wealth, massive lobbying, and an incentive to prevent any type of reform -- the real analog to tobacco company interests. Consider: What policies have been implemented to fight global warming? Ah, that's right: none whatsoever.

If you can't bother, then I'll take your lead and not bother either. Defaulting to disbelieving you.

Users vote and the higher votes get visibility. Slashdot. Reddit. StackExchange. Usable sites, it's a solved problem.

Flying cars are right in the same bin as:

(1) Colonization/living on other planets
(2) Uploading brains from bodies to computers
(3) War via robots resulting to no human deaths
(4) Technology giving the masses a life of leisure

Classic geek myths.

Why don't you cite data like GP did? It's like you're going out of your way for people to disbelieve you.

"(See 'Fireball in 10x10 room')"

Edition dependent: Yes in 1-2E. No in 0E, BX, 3-4-5E.

http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2011/07/spells-through-ages-fireball.html

Thank you for taking the time to post this.

"Science should be determined by the evidence available and the best interpretation of it at the time, not by people's feelings or politics."

I'm not sure that you're not the troll -- I seriously don't understand the level of bellyaching on your part. Who am I going to trust more on the issue, some writer trying to peddle a pop-culture book, or 100+ scientists engaged in the actual research? It's seems like a no-brainer as to who likely has a better grasp of the evidence and interpretation. If you're so intensely bothered by people engaging in argument, then I agree you need to grow a thicker skin or GTFO of academia, if you're actually going in that direction.

Side question: What's your stance on global warming?

Getting in the car and finding that Chris Christie shut down most of the lanes to gain political leverage.

MS Ribbon encourages that kind of mindless position-process because you can't even talk about it without words attached. All you can do is grunt and point at the cave paintings.

True, but that's a separate issue. The point is, the claim that a sample size of 49 is insufficient (and instead needs to be 10,000) is totally false.

None of these count as either citations, or even support your original statements. (a) A citation is a short on-topic quote with reference on where to find it -- it is not the entirety of a book, video, or article. (b) All of these sources actually say that Israelis are to blame, except that some Israeli military spokesperson makes a claim that "maybe" Hamas is to blame. I don't see anything here about your GP claim that "You mean the hospital where snipers were shooting at soldiers? Bet you also turn a blind eye to them transporting terrorists around in ambulances.", it's completely off-topic.

Congratulations, I am now even more convinced that you are a BS propagandist. Try again if you like.

"Way below the margin of error."

False. Sample size and margin of error aren't even commensurable quantities (not even same units). The only requirements for estimating a population proportion are (a) a random sample, and (b) at least 5 "yes" and 5 "no" responses in the sample. As someone else pointed out, the margin of error here would be about 14%, at the 95% confidence level, assuming a randomized sample. (Weiss, Introductory Statistics, 9E, Section 12.1.)

Ladies and gentlemen: The parent post is what it looks like when someone tries to BS you with fancy words that they don't understand.

"A lot of this hysterical screaming about how we're destroying the planet seems a lot like hubris. On certain level, the idea that we have that much power pleases the egos of some people."

Holy god, these "argument by hubris and ego" debates are so fucking stupid. Look, they can always be flipped around the other way: "People believing they can exponentially expand in population without suffering the same limits as any other species sounds like hubris. The idea that we can do whatever we want without consequences pleases the ego of people."

See? It always cuts both ways, Such a stupid thing to hang an argument on. Scientific data or GTFO.