Don't put words in my mouth. Although as it turns out you might want to look into where pension funds put their money.

Great, so phase two of your economic masterplan is to make sure the system bankrupts itself within a generation. Hint: people are producers as well as consumers.

Have you run the numbers on that basic income idea? Just back of the envelope here, but take the US - 300 million population, give them $200 a week each, that's a cool $3 trillion dollars per annum, which is equivalent to the entire federal tax revenue in 2014. So, you're going to double all taxes to pay for this? Okay so let's cut out all those too young or old enough to already be on a state pension, as well as those who really don't need an extra ten grand a year (which in some places is nowhere near liveable), let's cut it down to 100 million people. That's a trillion dollars per year.

And this is before you start to consider the inflationary effects of pumping that much money into the economy, regardless of how recycled it is - most of that will be going to poor people who will mix it straight back into the liquid economy, taken from the mid to high level wealthy who tend to invest in property and stocks instead.

Basic income is not a workable idea, but fortunately we have social welfare nets that do approximately the same thing for people who actually need it.

I wasn't aware the summary was written in code, or contained any lengthy co-ordinates either for that matter.

The primary language of South Africa is Zulu. English trails in a poor fourth down the list.

It's not ambiguous, it's very clear and perfectly acceptable anglophone denotation. If you want to use some other form of denotation or find this confusing, go to a non anglophone site or improve your language education, respectively.

Really. Really? Really now. So when a large landmass warms up by more than enough to melt quite a large proportion of its copious freshwater ice coverage and dumps that into the north Atlantic, it's not going to have any effect on the rest of the world?

I'm done. Find someone else to tie your shoelaces, simpleton.

Have you got a link to that, I hadn't heard shopping centres had started linking security camera footage to facebook accounts?

The link in your sig is dead.

I can read both the AC's comment and yours just fine, because I browse at -1. Slashdot is one of the very few remaining sites that practices almost zero censorship, unless forced to by legal action, for which I'm grateful.

In response to the point being made, I believe morbid obesity should certainly not be celebrated or pedestalised, but neither should it be mocked for its own sake. Suggesting it's a good or healthy way to go through life however is putting lives at risk in no uncertain terms.

The section you're tellingly not quoting is as follows:

Emphasis mine. When temperatures spike up by twenty two degrees and then down by twenty degrees, on average there's been a two degree change in temperature over the period, which is what you appear to imagine happened in a smooth gradient over the last twenty thousand years. They were even nice enough to break it into different eras for you - note for example that the disastrous Dryas stadials all occurred within the cited ten thousand year average temperature change.

That this needs to be explained gives me the sads.

The last 150 years haven't been a period of unique climatological equilibrium, they've been part of a warming process that's been jumping and stuttering along for the past twenty millennia, following in the footsteps of other warming periods which are followed by cooling periods, all of which had exactly zero to do with humanity.

I hope I don't need to explain the implications of this observation, especially vis the scientific validity of comparisons being made between barely a century of intense observations and ten thousand years of evidence being averaged out.

If you say so.

Yes I appreciate these might be difficult questions to answer,

Ahahaha did you even bother to read the linked text? That zipping noise was your credibility exiting stage left. You're a moron.

Spoken like a true with us or against us dyed in the wool partisan leftist.

So you lack self awareness on top of everything else.

I'm not the one peddling partisan politics here friend.

Yeah you do. Your previous comments clearly indicate that you do. I'm sure the children of future generations will have choice words for you, not that you'll be around to hear them. Which is of course your severance clause.

Dude just enjoy the buttered popcorn and watch the stupid parade, it beats tracking down law professor Anupam Chander and smacking his head with the nearest engineering book until we're forced to flee by the incoming police sirens by a long shot as far as effort goes.

Give that a little thought.

By that bizarre logic the earth itself is an infection.

Given that the earth has never had a stable climate, your notions are entirely alien to nature itself.

No, you refer to watermelons, the leftist interpretation of environmentalism - which has very firm roots among the monied classes of the 19th century, to say nothing of conservationism whose earliest manifestations can be tracked back a full thousand years earlier. Much like social welfare systems and every other ostensible social good Marxists have latched onto since Karl hoisted the first of many, many alcoholic beverages, this stuff has been around for a very long time.

You'd think you people would learn, I mean Russia has wound up somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan and China's busily returning to its imperial roots, complete with caste system. What you do is create reactions which eventually end up consuming any gains you might have made, a process which will inevitably end up being replicated even in the enlightened and much reviled (by the left) west.

Leftists believe me to be a conservative reationary, conservatives call me a progressive swine, I'm quite content to watch all of you idiots get hoisted by your own petards.

Have a good un.

Dry fact sadly. The reality is that the information I linked to above comes as a major shock to many anthropogenic global warming proponents when it should already be widely known, one fellow I was discussing it with lately proudly declared that we're going through the quickest global warming in 45 million years while earnestly claiming the imprimatur of science. Ask yourself why that might be the case.

The problem is people who regard this notion as a good thing and refer to human civilisation as an infection.

Who do you refer to when you say "our"?

Your weak link here is the assumption that science is in any way clear about what caused relatively recent drastic climate adjustments. Which leads us inevitably to the conclusion that we can't really go making any definitive statements about the comparitively placid warming we're currently experiencing.

It's much ado about not a whole lot anyway, fossil fuels are being scaled back to nothing and will be out of mass usage in a couple of generations, and no economies need be wrecked in the process either.