Well, OK, maybe not all Christians are like the poster you responded to. Just the ones that watch FOX News.

According to a survey, 90% of scientists from the relevant fields and 90% of all scientists ascribe to anthropogenic climate change. That is what we call a "scientific consensus", and you don't get a consensus that strong without an awful lot of data to back it up. I know, I know, the good pro-science guys at FOX News and on the Rush Limbaugh show and from the rightist think tanks keep saying this is "bad science", but let's take a look at the "science" the rightists use to make their arguments, shall we?

The most prominent, most cited, and most published climate change skeptic scientist is one Ross McKitrick, who is either an amazingly sloppy scientist, or someone deliberately engaging in fraud in order to promote a purely ideological view. I'll let you read for yourself: http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/25/mckitrick-mucks-it-up/.

This guy who either literally doesn't know a degree from a radian or is deliberately doing bad science in order to deceive people is the best of the bunch. The others are even worse. It is on the basis of work by men of this caliber that you conclude that 90% of the scientists on the planet, representing people from every conceivable walk of life, economic status, nationality, set of political views, etc. is part of a vast international conspiracy to... what? Make American rightists feel bad? I was never entirely clear on what this vast, incomprehensibly complex conspiracy is actually supposed to do.

You rightists are the best minions the Corporatists could ever have asked for. Even after all that has happened so far, your only concern is "how can we transfer even more political power to the largest corporations?" Can we deregulate them further? Can we cut their taxes more? Golly, transferring all that wealth and power to them over the last 30 years has been such a resounding success, we'd better do even more of it, eh?

Well, I'm sorry if it's getting old to you, but if you want to complain to anybody, complain to the corporations who engaged in this particular marketing practice. Because this marketing practice was used, we can never be certain if a positive comment about ANY corporation is legitimate or not. Pointing out this uncertainty may be tiresome to you, but the rest of us need to be reminded of it from time to time. There's no point in trying to kill the messenger; if you're going to get angry at anyone, get angry at the corporations who created this uncertainty by using this marketing tactic.

Cars crash. It's a fact of life. I would much rather use that thorium in a reactor somewhere, then transfer the power from the reactor to the car. You know, on account of the fact that stationary reactors are much less likely to crash and spew parts everywhere.

Sometimes, self-censorship can be funnier than spelling it out the normal way, you [expletive deleted].

The previous king was often the only voice of reason on matters pertaining to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. He was the only one to criticize both sides when they deserved it. The current king was not the crown prince, but the previous king changed his choice of successor at the last minute. Thankfully, king Abdullah has continued his father's tradition.

King Abdullah did things in his youth that he probably would not have done were he the crown prince. Things like appearing as an extra in a Star Trek: TNG episode. I believe that makes him the only monarch on the planet ever to appear in a Star Trek episode. Clearly, he is more of a Star Trek fan than I thought, and good for him.

As far as they're concerned, the world of science is part of a vast international communist conspiracy to make everyone think the world is round. The crisis is the only thing they'll accept as proof that they needed to do this.

The 90% of scientists you claim are part of this vast international conspiracy get paid the same no matter what their research shows. By contrast, the tiny number of climate skeptics you give credence to are all paid by people who stand to lose billions of dollars depending on the result of the research. Which do you think is more likely to misrepresent the data?

As for peer review, now is a good time to bring up the nature of peer review particularly as it pertains to climate science. Peer review is not the end-all be-all of testing the validity of research. Too many people think that any research that has been peer-reviewed can be treated as true or likely to be true, but peer review is only the beginning of the process of verifying/testing the results of a particular research.

A good example is that notorious and oft-cited research by climate skeptic hero Ross McKitrick. He is the most prominent and most-cited scientist of the climate skeptic crowd, and one of the few to be published in proper peer-reviewed journals. One of his research papers made it through the peer-review process and was published in a reputable journal (which is why right wingers still cite this study to this day). After it was published, someone tried to duplicate his results and found that he got his conclusions backwards because he got degrees and radians mixed up in his calculations. While this "mistake" is pretty staggering, the peer review process did not and could not catch an error of that nature.

...yet somehow, people complain about this aspect of solar energy never seem to want to bring up the fact that nuclear energy is far more dependent on government help for far more years? Solar becomes self-sustaining as the cost of fossil fuels rises, but I don't think nuclear will ever be economically viable without government help.

If having less government automagically makes things better, then Somalia must be the best place on Earth. Quite frankly, if you rightists have your way, America will become largely indistinguishable from third world nations like Somalia, so why go through all the effort of destroying America when your ideal society already exists elsewhere in the world?

Why should Paris Hilton's pet chihuahua suffer wearing cheaper jewelery just because some undeserving peasant wants to go to school, or doesn't want his child to starve, or doesn't want to drown in a flood? If peasants really want those things, they can get them for themselves! Stop punishing the chihuahua just because you're a lazy bum who thinks the government has the right to force innocent corporations to not poison toddlers! Commies! you're all a buncha commies! [/conservolibertarianstrawman]

The guy is retarded, and thus less capable of making or being responsible for decisions. Since you seem to be unable to grasp why it would be a bad idea to execute retarded people, I think the world would be better off without you. Society deserves to rid itself of people like you.

In addition to what you said, USB devices work much better under Windows XP than Windows 2000, but that is because Windows XP came with more and better drivers, not because of radical changes to the under-the-hood crap.

Microsoft seems to follow a similar pattern to Intel (every other release involves minor architecture changes), they just break the pattern more often

1. Windows 95 ==> Windows 98, Windows 98SE, Windows ME
2. Windows 2000 ==> Windows XP
3. Windows Vista ==> Windows 7

Clearly the robots are laying the groundwork for the Robot Revolution as we speak. They'll just let the radiation kill all the humans on board while the floating robospheres of death laugh mechanically at all the photons that pass harmlessly through them. One shudders to think what the robospheres could do with a space station and several human corpses in low Earth orbit!