(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.

Not counting the huge amount of our food that comes from those places.

No one said they were worried about it. The entire www=666 isn't even connected to Muslims.

The parent said

Oh no! It's a holy war against the internet!

I wonder how well that will work out. Will the internet fight back?

Then I said about as well as it worked out last time then presented the last time I knew of a religious war against the internet.

I swear... This isn't all that difficult. Are people really that obtuse?

And your point is what? Naming an argument does not mean it isn't proper to use it. Besides, it is not actually a no true scotsman argument. But what you would have otherwise? A few fringe idiots all the sudden represent every single other person of a group when there is absolutely no basis for it?

BTW, why it is not a no true scotsman argument is because he is not saying those people are not Christians, he is saying not all Christians are the same. A big bit of difference there.

Does it really need spelled out?

The entire WWW=666 was incorrect but due to someone's misconceptions, was used as a basis to war against the internet. Pointing out that 666 should be 616 is like arguing the bank robber crew socks instead of tube socks when he robbed the bank. It does nothing to the fact the bank was robbed. Likewise, debating whether it was 666 or 616 does nothing for the fact that someone thought 666 was the number and that WWW represented it and attempted to attack the internet as evil. It's like saying the thought of WWW=666 is otherwise valid when it clearly is not.

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?

Well at least they still teach the difference between "their" and "there."

And WWW is not 666 either.

You might as well be saying the blue moon isn't blue for what it is worth. I mean the entire premise of the post was about misconceptions as the basis for a war against the internet.

About as well as it did the last time..

You see, letters in the hebrew language are also numbers. There is no W so V is used in it's place or in other words, V and W are interchangeable. It so happens that V is also 6 so when you type www, you are typing 666. That's right, every time to go on the World Wide Web, you are paying homage to the beast.

That was the early rallying cry to why the internet was evil and should be removed. Of course some people who actually knew better checked up on those facts and it turns out a little different.

They can't comprehend the requirement of reasonable limitation on personal freedom as the underlying theme of constitutional government

WTF are you talking about? The constitution places no limits on freedom of the people. In fact, the US constitution is specifically a contract allowing government to do certain things. They are automatically barred from others but the bill of rights was put in place to ensure some key elements never took hold. Government seems to be wanting to forget that now but it is the entire premise of the federalist papers and the anti-federalist papers which discussed this very fact in detail and persuaded unwilling states to join in.

They see the world in terms of a polemical struggles of good and evil, black and white, us versus them.

I would say that when you believe what you just wrote above this, you would not understand why people who have a clue reject your assumptions as an attack on principle. The biggest amount of bullshit about all this is if your way is really better, you can amend the constitution and make it legitimate instead of crying about how inferior everyone who disagrees with you are because they don't magically see or understand something that goes completely contrary to the US constitution and the history surrounding it.

That's why they can't abide political comprise and seek to destroy anything they equate with their misguided definition of socialism as the arch enemy of democracy.

No one should ever compromise the integrity of the US constitution. Amend the damn thing if you think it needs changed.

Except the troll in question didn't take exception to being invaded, he took exception to an explanation that voided fault on anything but abuses of automated systems for the blocking of messages.

And yes, that would make them a troll when he has no evidence or presented no evidence otherwise.

I'm with ya. Except I don't think anyone should be collecting all this data unless it is with a warrant else none of it should ever be able to be used against you.

But if you do start something like that, and there are plenty of sites out there that could make it easier to do than you probably realize, just make sure you are not in violation of some law in your home state so they don't take your free speech and jack a boot on your neck in some john Wayne syndrome fit of a superiority complex.

Citation for what? Fewer than 10% of life long smokers will get cancer in their life time. That is not even counting those who started and stopped at some point in their life.

Their life time will be shorter and there are a list of other ailments associated with smoking but smokers and cancer is not a 100% given. On the other hand, of certain cancers, a high number of people with them are smokers, are thought to have it because of smokers, and of the deaths associated with them, smokers seem to be extremely high compared to non-smokers.