That's not AGW, that's just "GW".

Anthropomorphic Global Warming suggests *we* are a major cause of rapid global warming. With enough data, that can be disproved - you can compare current records with past & future records to see if man made CO2 (& other gases) has made any difference to global trends.

I personally prefer the term "Climate Change", as "Global Warming" only describes one part of the trend. That the global climate goes through cycles & changes is not under debate in the scientific community, we have overwhelming evidence that the world goes through glacial & interglacial periods. What's under debate is whether human activity is the cause behind the most recent changes.
For what it's worth, current models do predict brief periods of cooling between increasing warmer periods.

Regardless, anyone who claims to "know" the exact whats & whys of our climate is a numpty & clearly taking liberties.

What tripe. "We don't know" is what drives science.
You're spouting the same shit over semantics that creationists do over the "theory" of evolution. The only things we can know for certain are mathematical proofs.
Outside pure mathematics, all we can do is form models that make predictions which most accurately match our observations.
There are holes in most of our scientifically accepted theories. That doesn't mean you need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, just that modifications need to be made to the models (exactly as was done with Einstein's Relativity).

We don't "know" with a 100% certainty that gravity exists, but our models match our observations well enough that we can say it's "pretty fucking likely".

AGW most definitely is falsifiable, however neither camp currently has enough data to prove either way.

I suspect this is more in reference to mosquitoes. It's only the females that drink blood & transfer diseases.
Still, my first thought was...why bother? Just kill 'em all.

Refer to the post I was replying to. He's not questioning what it's for, but why it's being done in this manner.
In the case of leaving enough to pay off the taxes, an insurance policy guarantees a bigger share of the money to the heirs than if it were left in a savings fund.

Because the insurance payout won't be taxed & the overhead costs of the insurance policy are still likely to be less than the 45% inheritance tax that would otherwise be charged.
It's a loophole to make sure a bigger share of your estate lands in the hands of your heirs, rather than in federal pockets.

Logistically, the "who" could give could give a big clue as to the "where". Once you can narrow down the geographical area, you can better focus deduction as to where a 777 could possibly land. It's a big piece of kit & concealing a runway large enough to land it may be an even tougher feat than hijacking it in the first place.

Oh, no doubt the casualties would be catastrophic, but don't underestimate the power of sheer numbers. The Arab uprisings are a good example of its efficacy.

Their only influence on the US is through their threat to the South, as they lack any long range capability. The best they've managed to do was fire a chunk of metal into the lower atmosphere - that's a long way from an ICBM.

Whilst horribly under-equipped & outdated, North Korea has the largest army of foot-soldiers/infantry in the world. Adding that Seoul is also only 35km from the NK border, I wouldn't want to place any bets. If the North goes down, it'll take the South with it & flood China's already delicate border regions with a huge number of refugees.

Unless it gets taken down from the inside, I don't expect to see any changes in NK during my lifetime.

As someone who has lived & travelled across much of the world, the UK's public transport infrastructure, especially within cities, ranks very highly.

How is this modded 4+ Insightful?! It's ignorant, hypocritical bollocks!

"Women, gays, Muslims & atheists" are no more special interest groups than bible-bashing white males. And how the fuck do you make "accommodations" for atheists? Not force them to sing words of praise to your special interest deity?
On an organisational level, religion should have no place in military procedures. If you're having to make "accommodations" for people absent of any religion, then there's something horribly wrong with the procedures of your military.
And how the hell can you complain that atheists DON'T have to follow your religious doctrine, AND at the same time complain that other religious groups get to follow theirs?

Under pressure from Sikhs, the Pentagon has publicly clarified its existing procedures to permit certain practices "as long as the practices do not interfere with military discipline, order or readiness."
And not just that, they have to go the through the procedures to request permission for every individual deployment.

So it's OK for people to break with agreed military procedures & speak out against a minority, but it's not for a minority to request to do the same? Go fuck yourself.

Given the accuracy of your comments so far, I'll choose to take these self-professed baseless assumptions with a pinch of salt. You don't have enough information to even make a guess, but you "know" it happens? Do you have *anything* to back this up?

Something the whole world would probably agree with you on.

[/RANT]

Doubtful, but no worries, Flash will save the day!

Whilst I understand the dilemma, this is a defeatist attitude & not in the heart of democracy.

We had a similar problem in the UK with Labour & the Conservatives. The Conservatives lost many voters due to the huge controversies created during their reign in the 80's & 90's (symbolised by Thatcher), and the following Labour government took us into an illegal war & steered us into the financial crisis (it was the collapse of Lehman's in London that sent the dominoes falling).
The disillusion gave way to the Liberal Democrats getting their highest share of the vote in a *century*, forcing a coalition government. They didn't get a majority, however it gave the two leading parties a massive reality check & kick in the backside.

Prior to the election, we were all warned to vote tactically & that a vote for one of the minor parties would be a vote wasted.

If enough people act, change CAN happen.

Your comparison's a bit moot given you're comparing it to the wrong sport. "Rugby", y'know, from the bit you quoted from.

What complete bollocks. The usage of an armed response is so infrequent here that every event is heavily scrutinised. The media circus surrounding the 2011 Mark Duggan case as a good example.

I think you just made your own post redundant...