You implied that increase in temperature == arid and dry, which is not the case.

Irrelevant considering the topic.

This is not given, and according to ice-core data, earlier changes have also been quite quick, without the negative impact predicted in this discussion.

Yes, we make species extinct by killing them, destroying their habitat through agricultural expansion etc. What does that have to do with this discussion? Please note, the links between species going extinct and global warming are actually non-existent. There is some research that would imply that at a local level, some animals go extinct from that area, but there is nothing to indicate a general extinction event tied to global warming.

Again, look at previous warming periods, even periods where cold-blooded animals were in the majority (lizards, dinosaurs) and you will find that higher temperatures, more CO2 and more humidity means higher bio diversity. Also look at the current state of the earth. The places receiving the most sun - the equator - is the areas with the highest bio diversity (rain forests). These places are not the driest because the high amount of incoming heat generates high levels of moisture.

Good to see that the religious nuts (that is you) are out in force again. Sorry, but what you say simply doesn't match observed realities. In the past, when CO2 levels have been substantially higher than they are today, and higher than the predictions for AGW too, life thrived on this planet. In fact, in volume and diversity, it did a lot better than it currently is.

Yes, there is no doubt that the predicted warming will cause many issues for human kind, and it will even be traumatic for a good number of species tied to current habitats (but they will adapt quickly), there is no reason to think that the warming will be generally negative to life as such. Quite the opposite. When the earth warms it is far more likely that the earth, as was the case before, becomes a better place for life as such.

To argue otherwise is to argue against observations, and it will take a lot of very, very strong evidence to argue that the next warm period is going to have a significantly different impact on life as such than the previous ones. There simply isn't any evidence for that.

At this point in time - keep them segregated from society if they are dangerous, otherwise, help them live as normally as possible and accept the fact that some people are just different.

You are correct about the diagnosis accuracy. I worked during my studying years, in a mental institution. The reality is that if you send a patient to four different doctors the patient is going to come back with five or more mutually exclusive diagnosis. Psychology is less accurate than astrology.

Depending on what you mean by "we" this is inaccurate. If you mean "we" as in "you and I" then you are correct, if you mean "we" as "planet earth and the life on it" you are wrong. For "us" in that definition, 400 isn't uncommon or particularly high.

You should look at that map once again. Find the equator. Look at where the deserts are. See? They are nowhere near the equator. Deserts are not caused by heat, they are caused by dry climates. Hot == wet. Cold == dry. The biggest desert on this planet is called Antarctica.

Actually: Cold == dry == arid, warm == wet == quite nice conditions. Oh, and no, our deserts are not deserts because of the heat, they are deserts because of the humidity level (see weather systems).

This may be counter-intuitive to some, but still:
Cold == dry == desertification
Warm == humid == more plant life (both through the humidity and through the increase in CO2

Just FYI, Win8 now is on track to having about the same adoption rate as Windows XP did, probably a little higher, and we all know what happened to that flop.

I don't know what part of the world you live in, but it appears to be limited to the inside of the walls of your house. Dark chocolate with sea salt is amazing. Salt with chocolate has been popular all over the world (or the parts that have access to chocolate) for a long time.

Then again, not everybody likes real chocolate either and stick with what they get in the candy store, which has only a theoretical connection to chocolate.

You and I have very different views on the concept of "obscene", but hey, you could ask your mummy to increase your weekly allowance.

Not neeed. No need for ground control.

An iPhone is plenty sufficient.

They are not needed.

No, you assume we need to handle air-borne cars the same way we handle commercial jets. We don't.

Nobody would ever have to handle any number of vehicles in that range. There is no need for ground control.

Mostly for regulatory reasons :-)

No you won't. RTFA. That's for the on-board computer to worry about, while you are finishing breakfast and updating your facebook status.