(sigh)
This is the comment I was responding to:
Think of it this way: Imagine the entire planet heated up by 20C, we wouldn't expect to see any permanent ice outside of Antarctica. (The North Pole might get some seasonal ice, but the much warmer oceans would melt it fairly quickly.) Now, with all of the oceans that much warmer, think how much additional water vapor would make it into the atmosphere. When the additional water vapor ends up over the South Pole, it will be cold enough for it to freeze and fall as snow. As the snow accumulates, it compacts into ice and we end up with a LOT more ice at the South Pole.

So: Less ice everywhere but Antarctica due to global warming, but a lot more ice in Antarctica due to global warming.

But the point is, when there was LESS ice, it was because of global warming. Now that there is MORE ice, it's because of global warming, per the original comment I replied to.

Yes. There is less ice in some areas due to global warming and more ice in other areas due to global warming.

OK. Maybe you should tell all the scientist this. Be sure to copy Algore as well.
See, they seem to think that the first thing to go is the polar ice. That's why they keep measuring it. See, a few years ago, a lot of the ice melted, and we were told that it was because of global warming. Now the ice is back and growing, and we are told it's because of global warming.

And that is my entire point. No matter what the symptoms are, it's always a symptom of global warming.

Also, if it's colder in Antarctica and warmer in Hawaii, that's not really a sign of global warming. That's a sign of global nothing because the average temperature remains constant.

That would be comment I was responding to:
So much freshwater from melting glaciers that sea level isn't even level anymore, and some people still don't want to believe there might be a climate problem.

So if there's less ice, it's because of global warming. But if there's more ice, it's because of global warming.

Just curious, if global warming were not a thing, what would the ice caps be doing?

I haven't read other comments (I do not want to be a subject of the study :-) ) , i am sure somebody already brought the subject of correlation and causation: namely, the hypothesis that people who are already depressed and friendless tend to go to social networks.

The level of anti-"terrorist" propaganda is 10 times more than after 9/11, and there is no event even remotely close to that nowadays.

Notice the change in the level of dissent. After 9/11 there were Stockhausen and Maher. Granted, both of them were slapped at their dissident hands, so that contributed to deafening silence that followed.

I haven't heard a single voice that dares to doubt the propaganda.

Riiiight, because it's better to leave it as is. The word of the police vs the word of the citizen. They are already surveilling us. Cameras on cops is a means to at least attempt to keep them honest and provide a record when abuses of power occur.

OK, so we build a ship that can take us anywhere in a reasonable amount of time. Then what? What's the point without a destination?

Right now, our technical ability allows us to detect planets that may be capable of harboring life. Why don't we go ahead and do what we can do rather than sulking over the fact that we can't do more? Once the day comes when we can actually go there, we'll do that. Until then, let's do what we can, which is detection.

Electronics? Really? Those are just things. They can be replaced. My data is backed up and can be restored. The things to worry about are food, medical supplies, and water. We always have about a month's worth of food and water stored away in the event of some sort of disaster. I don't give a fuck about my electronic devices. I care about the life and well being of myself and my wife, and like I said data can be restored.

I've never had a wireless cord get unplugged from moving my PC. However, your point is well taken.

I somewhat agree, but it could help tell us where to focus other search efforts.

So why has every environmental initiative in the past 40 years been pushed by the Democrats and resisted by the Republicans?
You mean like this one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
Odd. I didn't know Bush was a Democrat.

What about this one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
Where are the Democrats pushing this bill and Republicans opposing it?

And although I'm stepping outside your 40-year limit, who created the Environmental Protection Agency in the first place? I'll give you a hint:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

Anyone who thought that Germany's protests over surveillance was anything other than hypocritical bullshit is an idiot. All countries spy on all other countries. They always have and they always will.

It's only stalemate 100% of the time if you're a machine. You're not a machine, are you...? Oh god. (If I read the Wikipedia article right, there's still a variant that isn't drawn.) "This is the most challenging popular game to be solved to date, roughly one million times as complex as Connect Four." http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...

If I had the time to learn it to a decent level, go/weiqi/baduk. (Or play on kgs frequently enough that I could maintain a free account). As it is, and from these options, I'd pick chess. Although I've played more FTL: Faster Than Light recently, and with more success than on FICS.