I was taught that using marijuana leads to heroin use. When you see many people around you that do not adhere to that model, you start disregarding the information as BS. After realizing how ridiculous some of the information presented about drugs was, I disregarded it all, so it actually backfired. The purpose of drug programs should be to inform students of the real consequences of drug use, not to make up horror stories to scare students.

The whole notion of a "gateway drug" is the misconception that correlation implies causation. Just because someone used caffiene, nicotine, alcohol, or marijuana before moving on to more powerful drugs does not mean that they caused the use of more powerful drugs. You could ban all of those drugs, and some other drug would become the first one users try.

I went on to watch a debate between Denning and Roy Spencer. I found Spencer's talk to be intriguing, but too optimistic:
1) He says that by his calculations, climate sensitivity is about 1.3 degrees Celsius, and could be lower. But he doesn't mention is could be higher, also.
2) He says that there has been no warming in the past decade or so, but doesn't address recent sea level rise and ice melt that does indicate warming.
3) He says he believes carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will not triple and may not even double, but offers no reasoning to support his beliefs.
The truth is that no one knows exactly what will happen, and Dr. Spencer could turn out to be right. But he gives no reason to be so optimistic. He just is. What if he's wrong? I remain skeptical of his beliefs.

Bottom line... stop pretending global warming isn't a problem. Propose what to do about it, or others will propose solutions you don't like.

About your signature... I thought a Heartland Institute video would be good for a laugh, but it is actually very informative. It should be a wake up call for millions of people.

Science is about generating hypotheses, then determining which are incorrect. Many things we take for granted in science now sounded too fantastic to believe when they were proposed. Quantum physics, plate tectonics, and ulcers caused by h. pylori are three examples that come to mind. On the other hand, you shouldn't blindly believe any new hypothesis just because you like it -- you should demand evidence before you accept a new idea.

It is what it is, no matter what you call it.

Why? It would take only one scientist to falsify AGW. All we need now is the evidence.

All that stuff in science textbooks has been the consensus of scientists for years. How else are you going to decide what to put in a textbook beside consensus? Just put in your textbook things you would like to believe are true?

The problem seems to be with drivers who were born between 1893 and 1897. If the DMV existed with computerized records in 1960, these people would have been in their sixties and probably still have drivers licenses. Apparently their records are still in the system.

Everything is nothing more than an honor system. You trust the operating system to accept only the password you chose when someone tries to log in to your account. You trust the compiler not to secretly install backdoors into software. You trust the hardware manufacturers not to implement secret knocks to allow backdoor access. You trust your browser to handle SSL certificates appropriately. If you don't like it, you can build your own hardware and software from scratch and feel safe in the knowledge that it's secure. That is, if you trust that you didn't make a mistake.