You are effectively challenging the whole concept of ownership as an extension of a body. If I lent my neighbor a car for a joy ride, I don't have control of it while he is riding, but if I call him on the phone and ask to bring the car back, he doesn't have the right to refuse because I lent him the car but did not transfer ownership. Your argument is tantamount to saying that possession is equivalent to ownership. But it's not. A car thief also comes into possession of a car. But that doesn't make him the owner. Much like a rapist is in a temporary possession of a woman's body, but that doesn't give him the right to that use. Ability and right are not the same concepts. A right is an ability which can be enjoyed without violating the law.

The counter argument does not hold water. Just because a woman let you touch her boob, doesn't mean she forfeited the right to say "no" to sex. And if she says stops after half an hour of sex, and you refuse to stop, then it is still rape. The right to deny use can be invoked even after expressly allowing use.

Ownership (all ownership) is the right to deny use. This is as true of intellectual property ownership as it is of tangible item ownership. And it's not a bad thing as many will knee jerk to scream. Ownership is a right to treat that which we earn as extensions of our body. If we have a right to deny the use of our bodies, then, by extension, we have a right to deny use of that which we own.

I don't have an issue with the paper itself. I take an issue with how it's being reported.

After reading the link and some of the references I have to agree with the conclusion. There was no flat earth consensus. I take issue with the presentation (it speculates nonsensically about the brain as a device for producing dichotomies and makes other unsupported claims). I also take issue with your characterization. Until Renaissance there was no concept of a scientist. There were philosophers (some of whom concentrated in natural philosophy), but all philosophy was studied as an attempt to gain understanding of the divine. One could argue, in fact, that before Thomas Aquinas' argument no separation between philosophy and clergy was even conceptually possible.

I'll let that go under poetic license because I feel generous. You did give me an interesting read.

Yes, if only I read the paper from which I posted a direct quote... If only. Both your claim and the claim made by comrade soulskill overstated the conclusions which can be made from the paper. That was the argument I was making. Your attempt to attribute to me a different argument will not stand. The methodology of the paper did not support that far over-reaching conclusion. Also your argument contains a factual error in the claim that

In fact 66.4% of the papers didn't express a conclusion on AGW. Simply because they didn't make take any position on it. However, it is still hugely misleading to claim that 97% of the papers express a pro-AGW position. AGW is a hypothesis. And the most accurate statement one can make is that 97% of the papers examining the hypothesis find evidence in support of this hypothesis. This does not rise to the level of a proved assertion as far as scientific method is concerned however. It also produces wild speculations such as "97% of the scientists agree with AGW claim." The reporters (whose job is to produce accurate communications) are, in fact, responsible for wild speculations that come out of their claims. This is because if they report inaccurately, they stoke the flames of those speculations.

First, scientific method relies on reason rather than consensus. "Earth is flat" was a consensus opinion. Oh, and TFA DOES NOT say what comrade soulskill put up there. 97% of the papers DID NOT claim AGW. Only 32.6% of the papers did. Here's a direct quote from the article's abstract:

Here's the link to the actual paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

97% of skeptics believe that 97% of proponents don't understand a damn thing about science and only agree with other proponents for the reason Paris Hilton is popular.

Why would claim any kind of allegiance to the scientific method? Scientific method doesn't rely on consensus-drive arguments. The best argument is discovered through introspection and experiments testing hypothesis. Taking a survey of articles unconnected to each by anything other than their subject matter is hardly even in the same ball park as the scientific method.

To be on the side of consensus. AMS ran a whole article on its front page clearly endorsing AGW in the abstract. The problem is that it didn't offer any justification for its endorsement in the article itself. All it did was list the mathematical physics that can be used to talk about the physics of climate. People are declaring allegiance to the subject because there is money in such allegiance. The worst of people join the party in power because they are the worst of people. It has always been this way. It will always be this way.

I'll give you two out of three.... which ain't bad.

All corruption begins with nepotism. No one can deny loved ones...it's part of what makes them their loves ones. Any behavior which is not done for profit is not ethical. Yep, I know you think it's sociopathic to think that way. I even realize that you think less of me because I know what you think and still disagree. The link breaks at the 2nd sentence though. Power attained through means other than profits is what corrupts. Political power, military power, power attained through love. All of these are powers which corrupt because they are attained without pursuit of profit. Ultimately, power comes through exploitation or through enabling. Power attained through enabling brings profits. Power attained through exploitation strip mines people around you and all strip mining does not last. Don't bring up the example of teachers as people enable without profits. They also enable without attaining power. The only ethical power comes from the pursuit of profit.

Yeah, pretty sure when people talk about cooperation, love, honor, etc IN THE WORKPLACE, they are not asking you accept the products of their work for free. They are asking you to work for free. $1500 for a prototype FOR DEVELOPERS. That is for people who will actually add value to the product. I am sorry, did I see Google release an IDE? There is a new C++ out is badly in need of an IDE. Did Google release that? Sure, they set up google code to give away other people's work. They enable a lot of business. They just don't enable a lot programming business -- only the programming business whose products they can have for free. They are in no position to ask for free code.

Bush expanded the powers of the state. Obama allowed the power of the state (entrusted in his hands) to be used to target his political enemies.

There is only two types of people who would know this for sure: people working for this endeavor and people making money by supplying this endeavor. Neither one of those would be posting details on the Internet. This is my educated guess and I am sticking with it until proven otherwise. Some obvious questions: how do you know it's a data collection center rather than a data processing center? Processing requires more computational power than collection. The only way to answer the question of which one it is to know exactly what types of systems were deployed there. Building a data collection center is not mundane by today's standards. Just scroll up... you'll probably see an ad from some cloud operator at top of the page. Building a massive computing center is more likely done to build a unique capability (large processing capacity) rather than duplicate a commoditized capability (large storage facility).

This rises to the level of wiretapping. This information was enough to figure out who the reporters' sources were. Which is the only type of information which otherwise stays secret as a result of such a phone call. All news-worthy information contained in such phone calls gets published. Only the sources stay secret. So the content of the call actually is less secret than identities of the individuals making the call.

I had no love for Bush, but I think it's quite a smear to compare him to Obama. Bush's administration wiretapped suspected terrorists. They never sank so low as to wiretap reporters. And you'd have to reach back to Nixon to find an administration using IRS to target political opponents. I also don't recall Bush starting any wars without Congressional approval (albeit approval obtained under very, very questionable auspices).