Trouble reading much?

Well, if in 50 years GW has resumes, I would have been wrong. If in 50 years it does not, I would have been right. Unless your graph predicts the future, it has no way of knowing who is right and who is wrong.

You graph proves one thing: The fact that the temperatures have been stable for 14 years doesn't prove GW has stopped. But it doesn't prove it hasn't either. It just basically says nothing about the future, unless you extrapolate it, in which case you make up "a" future. Yours.

Wow. Same comment all over again. So you can extrapolate this curve and deduce the temperature in 1000 years will be 354F ? If so, you're as stupid as your graph. If not it just mean one thing: the graph represent the past, and nobody know what the future is holding.

This is a very interesting question, no doubt.

Yeah, things change. Whheew. By the way, do we have any certainty over this? Polar bears are supposed to be extinct since quite a few years now. Still see them around.

Huh? How? Who says?

According to previsions 20 years ago, sea should have risen by 1m right now. It didn't happen. Fuck them and their stupid extrapolations predicting doom. They are just as clueless as you and I. Maybe it's time to acknowledge it by now.

Errrrrrr, is that any different than during the last 2000 years?

The biggest thing you seem to be forgetting is that we - as humans, even countries - cannot do anything that would put even a mild dent in the level of CO2 produced. WTF? Is it just for fun? Even if all of Europe stopped producing CO2 TOMORROW, it wouldn't change a thing. Asia (China, India) would pollute as much as we do/did in no time. And they don't give a flying fuck about all that. So exactly, what is the point?

And moreover, what is bad in this? Is CO2 killing the planet? Did you watch my video?

My bullshit? What bullshit? You didn't blow anything, sorry to disappoint you. The global warming seems to be in a pause, and after having had models debunked by the hundreds, scientists are not too keen on making previsions. Only politically involved "green" dumbasses claim things now. The rest know we haven't got a clue.

Your article starts with "A month after hitting its highest U.S. search market " (emphasis mine). I was answering originally to a blank statement that "Meanwhile, MSN's 3-4% of search turned into Bing's approx 28% of all searches" ith no mention of the US altogether. And trust me, Google makes more money outside the US than in the US, even though the US is hteir biggest country?

You act as if the stop of the GW was something we could deduce things from, where I argue we can't. Nobody has the first clue as to whether it will resume or not. All models pre-2000 have been proven false time and again. The point is: nobody knows.

The only thing we're finding out today is that higher levels of CO2 aren't necessarily as bad as we thought. In fact, they may be good for the planet.

Yeah, a Youtube battle! I have one too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-nsU_DaIZE

Your turn.

Ok, and now you're going to tell me that scientists completely understand climate and the ecosystem of earth. A warmer planet at some point means more evaporation, more clouds, and bang, a colder planet. There are countless mechanisms at play here and nobody has a clue to 10% of them, so let's drop the Matrix thingy, nobody gets it.

Besides, a warmer planet and higher CO2 levels aren't necessarily bad for either the planet or its inhabitants. See here for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-nsU_DaIZE

A few hundred of thousands of visitors per day over ~10 websites, but only in Europe. Note that I did not debunk his argument but asked for references. A bit more open than "Good luck living in a "frog in the well" bubble.". Guess who's in a bubble?

Apparently, nobody noticed that global warming stopped about 13 years ago... Something looks awry in this story, but then again, this is slashdot, so it is expected.

You're going to have to provide a very convincing reference for that. The logs from all the websites I manage still show Google doing 15 times the rest of the competition. Not only Bing.

Your catastrophic scenario is all well and good, but we're not running out of petroleum anytime soon. Not by a very wide margin. First of all, we haven't tapped 10% of the world's reserves of petroleum so far as it turns out. Second, the reserves remaining are more expensive to extract than the ones we've tapped in so far. That makes if a bit expensive for the biggest consumers of said petroleum: cars, house heating, transportation in general. Those will migrate slowly over cheaper sources of energy when it'll make economic sense, leaving the rest of the petroleum for all the other derivatives, which don't consume all that many in the first place.

You seem to think we're going to hit a wall at some point, but no, petroleum is getting more and more expensive and as it goes up, economy and societies will adapt, nothing more, nothing less.

We use less land to farm than in the sixties, while producing more than the double food. Why do you keep watching away from this? Anybody predicting that in the 60s would have been laughed at. What makes you think this increase is going to stop? The other areas are more productive as well.

How do you determine that "Apple has less usability, less polish, and a worse user interface than their major competitor" (I mean, other that it being your own tiny opinion along with your group of Apple haters) ? Do you have any kind of reference for this assertion?