They should have a FAQ List, just like the one that exists for every proposed solution to defeating spam mail.
In case you're not being sarcastic: there are tons of them, all you/they have to do to find them is tell Google to show you a list.
One of the best reasoned papers on this was penned by Burt Rutan, If you are only a casual follower of AGW I challenge you to read this and see things from one of the disbelievers points of view.
I agree this presentation works best if you don't spend too much time reading up on the science, because if you did you'd know how bad his arguments really are. They are fairly generic, and among the worst and most easily countered generic arguments the denialist camp has to offer. A google search for "generic denialist arguments" would be enough. Despite what denialist want to believe, proper scientists knows about these things and account for them.
It's not the temperature change itself that can stop the Gulf stream, but a large flood of fresh water from melting glaciers. Especially if the water piles up in large dams (much larger than the ones we've seen in Iceland) that burst suddenly, it will change the salinity level a lot in a short time.
Who's going to pay for the production and distribution of all this easily available food? I doubt those who pay for it now will, considering you're going to give it to somebody else. Also, the people in charge in these countries are a product of their society. They're corrupt because the whole society is corrupt. Take away one and another just as corrupt person will replace him.
Of course, the fishing will end when there is no more fish to catch. Unfortunately, when this has happened in more local areas the stock has taken 20-40 years to recover, or not recovered at all (like some species of whale). In the mean time we will have to stop eating fish completely, which most likely means overtaxing other resources even more.
Wooho, aren't you clever. If you want to make fun of my misspellings, at least have the courtesy to misspell it the same way.
Anyway, it's not an arbitrary low number, it's a number that's always lower than whatever number you can come up with, making it impossible to reach, and thus infinitely low. It's the same concept, and the reason you pretend it's an abitrary number is that it breaks with the definitions you want to believe makes sense.
Then you're also defining 1/(1/infinity) as division by zero. You can of course do that, but you can just as well say that it means 1/infinitly low number=infinitly high number. Either way it's just a definition you agree to.
The big questions are military: who is the enemy? What are they trying to accomplish?
Like when they thought they were under attack by Iraq, and it turned out to be three teenagers from California and Israel? Sounds to me like they could use a few proper geeks to help them out with the computer stuff...
I always thought it was a metaphor
If course it was, this is just a clarification to stop religious extremists from being able to pretend that he supports their god. What I find really interesting in the article is that he supports M-theory. It may be old news, but I wasn't aware of it.
> I hate to go all Godwin on you, but isn't the best example of evil in the past 100 years a perfect example of 'lawful evil'?
No, that's an example of a few lawful evil making the laws and a lot of lawful neutral following them.
The "testing" part means trying to prove that it's wrong. If there's a single article on Wikipedia everybody should read, it's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
> How much data constitutes "massive"?
From the way he asks and what he will be using it for I would guess 10-20TB.
What I don't understand is why people think we have any resources here that they couldn't get much easier closer to home. If they have technology advanced enough to get here, they can already make anything the Earth can supply.
"I've seen it. It's rubbish." -- Marvin the Paranoid Android
