Jesus was a hippie.

Many of the rich have inherited the money. I've worked with second generation rich: they are well-intended, but typically so involved with their lifestyle that work is merely a hobby. Third generation rich are 'old-money', i.e., aristocracy. No positive influence is to be expected from them. I.e., the rich are a diverse bunch. The ones that actually became rich are typically awesome. But the world is ruled by Paris Hilton.

Obviously the concept of a representative democracy (i.e., the form of government all western republics and monarchies have adopted) is still foreign to you.

And of course, no declaration of war was made. The US constitution had been superceded. By what exactly is left as an exercise to the reader.

Hi Stenvar, you sound like a rational person. Have you actually read this thread where people are completely and openly questioning global warming occurring, questioning the morals of the people involved in climate research, questioning antropogenic global warming, arguing that scientific research is a gravy train that keeps on running, forwarding a conspiracy theory that politicians and corporations worldwide have for the first time been able to collude globally, and generally display an attitude resembling young earth creationists and truthers? These are the denialists. You are the only one in this entire thread that argues an economic opposite viewpoint based on the scientific evidence we have so far. All 100 others are simply denying a problem exists. They are trying to further a political agenda by attacking the messenger, not the message. They are denialists and are not worth discussing.

But if you have a reasoned argument on what needs to be done w.r.t. AGW, why are you spreading lies about the facts of AGW? And if you're not actively spreading lies (as you don't seem to be at least in this post), why are you defending those that are? Claiming something isn't true because you fear what others will propose (not enforce, propose) to mitigate the fact is at best childish. In this case it's close to criminal.

Awesome, we give the US the property rights to the atmoshpere above the US. We'll fine the US for any effects that it spreads around it's any area it doesn't control. I think three trillion dollars per ppm CO2 would be nice thank you.

I'm absolutely convinced that AWG is true, but I am severly skeptical about the measures proposed in your message to have the desired effect. Unfortunately, the discussion about AWG completely dwarfs the discussion about what we can do to mitigate the effects. That is really what pisses me off. The AWG deniers are absolutely preventing a sane solution to even be discussed. It's infuriating.

Okay, so you are denying a fact because you don't like the way some people want to mitigate the effects of that fact. That's pretty mature, in line with putting fingers in your ears and screaming lalalalalalalala.

There's no 100% proof, sorry. There's 90% proof, there's 99% proof, there's 99.9% proof, there's 99.99% proof, etc. However, there's are no certainties, no 100% proof. Sorry. Try living in this world.

On another note, how much proof of of NOT crashing in the next plane do you accept as tolerable for taking said plane? You seem to argue for 0%: we need to be absolutely sure that we are crashing this plane before we refuse to take it.If we survive 1 in a 100 flights, we shouldn't complain. We need to be absolutely sure that we crash this plane before we try to do something about it.

Awesome. As long as I can kill everyone and their progeny if despite our efforts, temperatures rise by 3 degrees, I'm game.

You are looking at a large construct where each and every part has been scrutinized. The parts are put in a consistent whole to create an overall indication of the state of the climate, and you are claiming it isn't fair that they didn't put in an obvious weak spot that could invalidate the whole? Are you asking the same of engineers when they construct a bridge? "Please, please, put a single point of failure in so I can destroy the bridge without too much effort? How else am I going to prove that the bridge will crumble under the load! It ain't fair!"

So yes, I'm sorry. The state of this part of science is such that all obvious issues have been addressed. Although far from perfect, the picture emerging is consistent with a climate that is quickly heating due to forcing by CO2. This CO2 is man-made by burning CO2 previously captured. To invalidate this whole, you will have to find non-obvious sources of error. This will require a lot of work, and, might not even be possible because you know, the overall picture might actually be roughly correct.

And honestly, what's wrong with this? Complex modules such as database engines or GUI frameworks should be black boxes, with no need to look inside. What we're failing to do as a profession is to be able to clearly state what these black boxes are providing. So yes, I want to know that if I query this database on a field that hasn't got an index that it is O(n), instead of O(log(n)) if it has one. I truly don't care how they achieve that, and if they don't achieve what they claim, I would want to be able to sue and get another library.

What you're advocating is the status-quo. We don't really engineer our solutions so we need to have knowledge of each part of the solution. If you contrast this with real engineering: there every layer provides some form of guarantees. If you build a bridge, you know the forces steel products can withstand, and you pick your supplier of steel based on these guarantees. We don't do anything of the sort. We just pick at random and hope for the best. No engineering.

As the Boston bombing shows, the NSA is really not reading facebook. They're storing all this shit. but it's not used for any actual intelligence work. I can only speculate what it is used for, but chances are that's it's about money. So feel free to post on facebook, that's the last place they'll look.

e^{\pi i} + 1 = 0 is written simpler as e^{\pi i} = -1. So yes, Euler's formula is doing something redundant. And how come '0' is fundamental? It is just 1-1.

e^{\tau i} = 1.