Christian (the Apollo developer) discussed that and said that it wasnâ(TM)t really his cup of tea. He enjoys making the product, not managing a beast. Fair enough.

From recent info released, itâ(TM)s got very little to do with the API itself, and more that Reddit is charging for âopportunity costâ(TM) of users eyeballs.

The Apollo developer was willing to make the changes require and set up monthly billing, but had 30 days to make all the changes. He stated that it simply wasnâ(TM)t possible.
Redditâ(TM)s actions are a red herring - theyâ(TM)re intentionally trying to kill 3rd party apps full stop.

Because it tops the world's most liveable cities lists, so the rest of the world may as well not exist?

Sort of like a 'restaurant at the end of the universe'?

Good on you for persevering. Glad that I randomly checked in to catch this post. But as a suggestion try r/science on Reddit. The mods there have short tolerance for drivel comments.

Crackberry.

Casual sexism for the win.

Oh wait, that was't casual at all!

Dickwad.

How much did you pay?

Why does it need to be only about the monetary value of ideas? LED bulbs cost a fortune only a couple of years ago, but their price dropped as adoption rose.

Everyone makes judgements on the value of intangibles all the time, and many people still value quality of life as high if not higher than money...except armchair economists for some reason.

Luckily some people are interested in the quality of life in the future, and have a desire to leave the world in a better state than they found it.

There's no need for me to call them, because the IPCC has never made such a claim, and the IPCC reports all suggest there has been no pause too.

Everyone agrees that the warming trend is not accelerating as fast as it was previously, but this is very very different to 'not warming'. If you can't tell the difference between 'acceleration' and 'increase', I suggest that you never ever drive a car.

The only thing I can find is an article from The Australian newspaper:

"an article by Graham Lloyd in The Australian (paywalled) claims that the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Rajendra Pachauri agreed that there has been a 17-year pause in global temperature rises. Unfortunately we don't know exactly what Pachauri said on the subject, because Lloyd did not quote him directly".

Also, despite many requests, The Australian refuses to release a transcript, and Pachauri and the IPCC claim the paper has misquoted and misrepresented them entirely.

So, maybe you can get Dr. Curry and the IPCC to give me a call and tell me I've got it all wrong. Thanks.

You didn't link to the IPCC anywhere. You linked to something written by Richard Tol, who is an economist and ex-lead author at the IPCC, and has pretty much zero experience with scientific analysis of temperature changes. 'Lead author' is a bit of stretch too - he was heading one of the IPCC report sections dealing with an economic analysis of the impacts of global warming, His departure from the IPCC was surrounded by use of incorrect or limited data from other papers and errors in his own work.

So not a really credible source for saying 'no warming'. A link to a chart of temperature data from some peer reviewed source would be better.

I keep seeing this argument, but no one ever tells me where they get the "no warming" from. It's just not true.

http://images.remss.com/msu/ms...

Part of the reaction you might be getting is that many of these 'counter arguments' have been shown to be:

- outright fabrication
- cherry picking of data
- intentional misleading analysis

Things like the polar ice is a great example - there is a local phenomena of sea ice generation, but it doesn't refute the bigger picture of constant warming ocean and land temperatures. It is being studied by a number of teams, and will eventually expand our knowledge of the planet and its systems, but it doesn't change any of the argument to date.

I also want to say that you're not being terribly consistent when you complain others call you 'shill', and you then go on to give the 'sheeple' argument that society is being manipulated into a crisis mentality to simply sell some products. That's being hugely insulting and completely disingenuous to your skepticism. It shows the bias and lack of understanding you're investing into the sceptical position that you've decided to take.

You could take your ozone issue as an example - it wasn't just some crackpot genius marketing idea to sell new aerosol cans, it was a genuine issue that still effects everything everything in the lower southern hemisphere. It could have been catastrophic, but action was taken and the problem has stabilised (and begun to recover). I would also argue that most environmentalists are fully aware of issues like the Pacific Garbage Patch, and there are plenty of active campaigns to reduce waste in all forms. However, there is an element of relative urgency in all things, and just like you wouldn't complain to the doctor about the scratch on your arm when you need to be discussing your cancer treatment, plenty of people are naturally focusing on the perceived bigger environmental threat of global warming,

Haven't looked at average temperatures anytime recently, have you?

http://www.realclimate.org/ind...

2014 was the warmest recorded year.

Just replying so that anyone else reading this isn't suckered in by your mistakes or ignorance:

1. Steel gets 'soft' enough between 500 and 700 DeC to lose most of its structural properties.
2. A typical fire - like something that could start in an office - can easily get to 700+ DegC. This includes the gas coming off the fire.
3. A bit of jet fuel could easily set most things inside an office building alight.

Source - I design buildings not to fall over in a fire.

Who do you sell your products/services to?