I don't dumpster dive much more these days, it's not worth the effort.

Cynicism is easy-both for you and the people that want to take your freedom away. What's difficult is getting off your ass and doing something about it.

Yes, it is. We do it all the time here in Sweden. It's standard procedure and not having done it already is outside of the norm.

Fair point. I think I've just got newspeak burnout at the moment.

Pretty much. I suppose that's what keeps people in repetitive jobs though.

Look, I know the guys in suits buy into this crap, but there's really no reason to spread it on our walls.

If you're going to provide a solution to a problem do it, describe it in clear concise english. This person hasn't actually said anything at all. They simply used a larger than necessary amount of words to do it.

Thank you for your support, it's much appreciated. However, Falkvinge's news service isn't in any way affiliated with the Swedish Pirate Party (or any other Pirate Party as far as I know). Interests and viewpoints might of course overlap regardless.

Yes. It's the actual science that refutes the anecdote you quoted.

No, they didn't. Here's a reputable source:

http://nsidc.org/images/arctic...

The rapid climate transitions mentioned in the research I linked have nothing to do with super volcanos or large asteroid impacts.

Why is it important for you to deny science when it doesn't fit your preconceived notions?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...

I did. Web 2.0 Summit, San Francisco, in 2008. He claimed (and quoted scientists) that the arctic would be free from summer ice in five years. Recorded video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

(Oh, and he was way off on claiming it's "been there" for three million years. It didn't exist during the last interglacial, the Eemian, and a growing body of evidence suggests it didn't during the beginning of our own interglacial, during the Holocene Optimum, either)

Wrong. Why do you believe something with absolutely no scientific support?

Until a few decades ago it was generally thought that all large-scale global and regional climate changes occurred gradually over a timescale of many centuries or millennia, scarcely perceptible during a human lifetime. The tendency of climate to change relatively suddenly has been one of the most suprising outcomes of the study of earth history, specifically the last 150,000 years (e.g., Taylor et al., 1993). Some and possibly most large climate changes (involving, for example, a regional change in mean annual temperature of several degrees celsius) occurred at most on a timescale of a few centuries, sometimes decades, and perhaps even just a few years. The decadal-timescale transitions would presumably have been quite noticeable to humans living at such times, and may have created difficulties or opportunities (e.g., the possibility of crossing exposed land bridges, before sea level could rise)

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projec...