I suppose they couldn't live up to this promise any more since they changed it to We don't just make chemicals, we make chemistry

I guess too many were traumatised by Cartman's satellite dish to ever make this viable option.

And I suppose this too is all based on hard science? You probably agree, as nobody disagrees (including oil lobby), that global climate change is a fact. The only discussion is about who/what is causing it.
In your rain dance example. What scientists are saying is that we should STOP our dancing ritual because it is raining too often. Science shows the rain is not caused by the dance, but by the small ash particles coming out of the fire which go into the clouds and start forming droplets. So because YOU do not understand the science and cannot see the relation between the "dancing" and the rain does not mean you should ridicule those who actually did the research.

Yes, that is why we had the hottest decade on record with most of the extremes in the last 12 years. But yeah, you can ignore the facts and go with whatever works best in your head.

Did the warming happen as quickly as it does now? What was the impact on life on earth? Are you 100% sure we are NOT causing or amplifying it? I am quite sure we are AT LEAST contributing to it without having done any hard research.

Then why bother? Why spend time/money/resources to find a cause which we can't change anyway? Or maybe you should take a closer look at the real science/big picture (fire) and not get distracted by the music and the waving feathers.
Why is it so hard for you to even consider we MIGHT be causing or contributing to it? Remember the hole in the ozone layer? Remember the acid rain? They were all natural phenomena? How many species are extinct due to human intervention? If you believe we have zero impact on our environment, I know which way the grade average of your class went when you stayed home.

Maybe you should not try to find what you did to break it, but find someone/something else to blame ;)

Wrong. This proves that whatever is causing global warming is still here.

Yes, and each time it lead to massive disruption in the way life was organised on earth. You suggest we do like the dinos and go 'meh' so in 100 million years our bones are dug up by giant intelligent insects who will be thinking what "natural disaster" caused us to disappear (warning: dramatised).

I feel like a repeat of history. Remember back in the days when it was just "mad/fearmongering scientists" who claimed tobacco and asbestos were cancerous while the nice, honourable and moral industry said everything was hanky dory and we should continue to use their products. Now when people/economies are hooked on fossil fuels, ONLY the oil industry is trying to convince us that everything is hanky dory and we should continue to use their products.
Unfortunately we do not have hundreds of thousands of planets to test/prove the theory statistically like was done with lung cancer.

Like whom? Independent scientists all over the world are in agreement. Who gains from NOT buying/burning oil and reducing our fossil energy consumption? Perhaps you should turn around the question. Who is losing when we change our ways. At which side of the argument are they and how many (truly) independent supporters do they have?

When we burn oil/coal/... it is a fact that heat and CO2 is released in the atmosphere. Although I doubt the amount of energy dissipated by heat will make such a great impact, the issue with CO2 is that it traps energy in the atmosphere which would otherwise be dissipated into space. The real problem with CO2 is that its effect is compounded and amplified. When more CO2 is released in the atmosphere, temperature will rise, when temperature rises, there will be more moisture in the air which is also a greenhouse gas. On top due to the higher temperature, the polar caps are melting releasing CO2 trapped in the soil. Adding more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Additionally, since snow/ice is white, it reflects most of the light/energy. Reducing the amount of ice covered surface will increase the amount of energy the water/soil will absorb. More energy means more heat, more heat means ... it is a vicious circle.
Whether you think we caused it or not, we are DEFINITELY contributing to the problem.
Analogy: When there is a famine coming and some scientist say, there will be famine because we are eating our sowing crop and we should stop wasting food and grow alternatives. You say: there were famines before, rations and less food means economical harm for restaurant holders.

Like floods are not causing harm or hurricanes or blizzards? Droughts? Lack of fresh water? Dying bees (no pollination)?

So how can we make sure we can go longer with our current supply? Maybe by reducing our usage of oil? Oh, wait, that is EXACTLY what everyone else is saying. No matter how you look at it, we should reduce our CO2 emissions (less burning of fossil fuels). It makes economical sense, it makes ecological sense and it makes strategic sense.

So you endorse those "certain parties using theories ...", regardless if they are nut-cases or respected scientists?

1) Irrespective if you think humans are the cause of global warming or not, you can't but agree that we are contributing to the problem (even if it is only 0.1%).
2) No matter what you think about global warming and the causes. Everyone against global warming is for less dependency on oil/coal/... and is for a sustainable energy supply.

You claim those people have their heads in the sand for short term problems (which you call realities), yet their suggestions are perfectly compatible with any solution for the short term energy crisis we might be facing. Btw. I have high hopes for the fusion reactor (hopefully operational by 2019).
Yet it seems you have your head in the sand with regards to the climate change (what if you are wrong?). Even if technologies are now developed for the wrong reasons in your opinion like renewable energy for global warming, it may still be beneficial for you and humanity as a whole. (examples are ample: explosives for mining operations, radar for aviation, GPS, Internet, ...)

First mistake: These values are for a US/Western life. The values for "foreigners", especially third-world countries where most of the casualties will be, is MUCH lower. Also when there will be a famine, the first casualties will be the "weak": elderly, handicapped, children, women ...
Economically speaking, some of them will be net profits.

Second mistake: The economic loss as you calculate will be in the countries of origin. This will reduce the world economy, but will have less impact on the western world. This has the pervert effect that western economy will have a greater percentage of the world wealth and as a consequence a greater influence, so why would anyone want to invest in a worse future?

Third mistake: You assume the US cares about the financial well-being of others. Investors will lay off hundreds of thousands of people to gain 3% more return on their investment. The cost of keeping a pet is greater than the cost of medication and nutrition of a few African/Asian children.

Forth mistake: You assume (the majority of) people will plan ahead and/or see the consequence of their actions. Look at all the debt we rack up. Look at how we "bury" our waste (including nuclear) like putting it in the ground will make it magically disappear. Look at how people (ab)use antibiotics.

Fifth mistake: You assume the loss of money will be evenly spread amongst all people. This is untrue as we can see in the economic crisis. The wealthy/powerful, who decide policies, will see little impact while the poor/weak will take the biggest hit.

No need. When prices will have sufficiently risen, you will have no more money to buy these products.

It is very easy. CO2 is mainly a by-product of our energy consumption. When there are no more cheap energy sources (oil), people will be forced to use less energy by the ever increasing prices. Between 1990-2000 1 barrel of crude oil on average costed less than $20. Between 2000-2004 it went up to $30. Now it is at $100: why do you think that is? Kyoto? Off course not. Did your income go up 3x since 2004? No? So the same amount of energy is taking up a greater portion of your available budget. This will continue until one of two things will happen:
1) People will start using less energy: either by using more power efficient technologies or by abandoning comfort because it will be too expensive
2) We find a new cheap sustainable alternative energy source (nuclear fission is definitely not viable before 2020)

If prices triple again in the next 10 years, will you continue to burn whatever you can afford or will you then start reducing your energy usage (insulating, smaller car, ...)?

Good luck. You obviously never tried this and got burned to the ground by the "netfilter" guys because their "NAT IS EVIL" mantra.

AFAIK there IS NO IPv6 NAT available at all with iptables (unlike openBSD). Their suggestion: "use reverse proxies".

Heck even a single command to administer everything is too much to ask (they are separate protocols, but then again every other application which binds to :: will serve both 4 and 6). You'll have to duplicate each firewall rule set.

Is this some kind of inside joke like half of the code is dead (LibreOffice) or there are many different formats doing the same?

I am totally lost and confused by your "analogy". The whole idea about an analogy is that you make it SIMPLE by using well known concepts.

So then what were you saying? It is like powerpoint? Or Outlook?

Please do not take this wrong way. It is meant as positive criticism: try to find better analogies, it helps the both of us. :)