The user's browser settings should take precedence over some web service.

With GNOME3, we know that the GNOME folk have jumped the shark. They took the nice, tuned, usable interface that everyone understood and was okay with in GNOME2 and threw it all away for something that looks like it was somebody's experiment in making a tablet UI. It's utterly full of fail.

Seriously, what's wrong with having a bunch of competing definitions?

Forests: There is not a consensus on whether old-growth versus new-growth forests have more biodiversity; often the old-growth has more (but not always). The fires themselves can easily wipe out biodiversity as well (sure, they might wipe out disease too, but they easily might not; the fire doesn't really care if the tree is sick or healthy).

Human hunting of wildlife: Depends on how much, but mostly we don't have a role to play in the food chain; we play too well and there are far too many of us for most of us to hunt. Almost *any* food we eat feeds people using natural resources; hunting is no different. At our present population, the only way we can feed our species requires farming and possibly livestock. Any exceptions are not sustainable for our whole species.

Hunting predators: Maybe. It's bad for biodiversity, but it does keep our livestock and human populations safe. However, we're not a natural predator of predators. If you want to trust nature, the systems will balance themselves (we're not guaranteed to like the results though).

Domestic oil drilling: It really depends on where. Also, our appetite for oil is such that we can't come close to meeting our needs for a long time with domestic drilling; if it's even possible that we may eventually, it'll happen far enough in the future that hopefully we'll have moved on to smarter sources of energy by then. That said, if there are areas that are not ecologically fragile where we can safely extract oil and use ot to help lessen our needs, it'd be a good idea to use them.

I have no idea where you're even going with sun cycles. The effects of variance in sun cycles are miniscule; not enough to explain any climate trends whatsoever.

On learning to tend the environment, we've learned a lot. Early ham-fisted efforts are not indicative of what we can do now, as we've learned from our mistakes.

What you posted is a mixed bag of half-truths, red herrings, and oversimplifications. Some of it's outright wrong. If you're interested, we can go over it bit-by-bit.

They need to understand that it does not suggest high amounts of clue when they tell us CO2 is part of nature as if that were some kind of an argument. Proportions are important.

That might be move believable if we didn't have countless counterexamples of towns with most of their businesses with "NO COLOUREDS" in their windows.

Of course, if it wern't a concern, the legislation wouldn't be necessary and would be just like a law saying that people need to breathe. :)

Most libertarians I know think that business owners should be free to, say, only serve white people.

The question in science has always been, "does it have predictive power?"

On this I'm serious. I reject the concept of owning ideas or data.