Thanks for correctly using metre and meter. That's incredibly rare here on Slashdot and sincerely appreciated.

What fraction of one's time should be spent on leisure activities? What fraction is appropriate for active participation in society? I don't know the answers. Your point is great and I struggle with it a lot because I do understand that the hours I spend with a book of fiction are just entertainment and the hours my son spends on a game are the same. I admit I'm guilty of stirring things up on purpose.

Well I am in my forties so you got me there. I don't know about most of "america". I only know myself, my peers, my son and his peers. The games may be played by older boys as you suggest but that doesn't mean they should be. It just means they don't actually have something useful and interesting to do (like reading this site).

Your last paragraph is a much better summary of my views than I gave myself. I was being a bit provocative. The idea of creating or contributing instead of consuming, being active instead of passive is what I want for my kids, my wife and myself and in general we seem to be succeeding.

I tried various things with my son but nothing took until he started taking a programming class at school (14, grade 9). Now in Grade 10 he has written a poker game in Java that surprised me with the detail he managed to add. There's even a (low-skill) AI to play against. It took a bit of maturity and a structured environment that I couldn't give him. Now he's reasonably keen and though he still plays online that's also diminishing. I think anyone who spends a lot of time on games past about 16 years needs some help growing up. The need to play so much indicates (to me) that they don't have enough interesting, more important things to think about.

"Data from the Sydney Myopia Study data, while cross-sectional in nature, suggest that greater time spent outside can also over-ride the greater risk associated with near work and schooling."

http://journals.lww.com/optvissci/Fulltext/2009/01000/What_s_Hot_in_Myopia_Research_The_12th.2.aspx

This, to a limited degree, is what they are doing in British Columbia. Carbon taxes are increasing and income taxes are decreasing to compensate. There was even an up front payment to compensate people at the beginning of the process. British Columbia politics are a bit crazy but this is, for once, a genuinely good idea that took political courage to implement.

It's a tax on everything until the existence of the tax pushes carbon out of the production and transport of everything (some things, most things). That's the point. Not only should carbon be taxed but the tax should increase year by year.

What have you been doing for the past 15 or 20 years? Setting aside any more teasing I'll just welcome you to rest of your life. Congratulations.

I agree. So many here just don't understand this simple concept. It's not being made for you! It's supposed to be a dumb, simple device with limitations and less freedom. That's what many potential customers actually want. I believe that the annoyed crowd is upset because devices like the iPad and iPhone are interesting, well-designed, "cool" devices and they want them but that doesn't quite fit into their worldview.

I agree. I really don't understand why people are so upset about this. Apple is not selling a device (a system) for geeks and nerds. They are selling it to the know-nothings who just want a TV or refrigerator, a box that does one or a small number of things without confusing them (too much). This is not to say that these people aren't smart, they just don't care about Computing. I think the nerds are upset because it is an amazing device and it's not easy to tinker with. It's envy.

No one is assuming anything (*). Scientists are analysing data and trying to understand what's causing the patterns that they observe. At the moment the best fit includes significant forcing by anthropogenic greenhouse gases. If that changes the scientists will incorporate the new knowledge and change the "theory". This is how it works. They aren't assuming that it's caused by the anthropogenic gases, they are finding that it is caused by them.

Also, the climate does shift "on its own". That natural variability is taken into account.

There are many data available. They come from different, independent measuring systems. This is well established.

I can understand the lay person's reluctance to just accept pronouncements delivered from authority. We used to do that more but now that's not an acceptable reason to believe something. However, to assume that everyone doing this research is wrong and worse knows even less about it than you do is not going to help. If you won't trust scientists to do their research why do you trust anyone? Is every specialist in the world is just somehow making things up as they go? Every engineer worthless, every medical doctor guessing? These people spend years at universities studying. Is that worth nothing? The entire system would have to be a sham. Physics and mathematics would have to be wrong.

Also, the magnetic poles have nothing to do with this.

* OK there are assumptions but they are constantly being tested and revised. When possible assumptions are eliminated by developing better theoretical underpinnings based on observations and evidence. It really does work that way and every specialist does it. They have to or they wouldn't be able to proceed.

They do use standard modelling software. Most major climate models are composed of pieces of the other ones. Many research groups use a small number of ocean models. The source codes are all available for download. In some cases straight from the web, in other cases you just have to ask. Why is this all so difficult to understand? The data are all on the web too. It was all and is all on the web.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

Really this is getting pathetic.

Well said.

Nobody is talking about cooling. Where do you get that? No one is distorting findings for money. The problem with this issue is the intensely political response to the science. It's not the scientists causing the trouble or the controversy. Scientists do have a responsibility to present their findings honestly and in a straightforward manner. The policy makers and general public make this a difficult topic to deal with because they bring their personal concerns (political concerns) into the discussion. Unfortunately for the naysayers out there, anthropogenic climate change is real. The planet is warming. It is caused by the incredibly short sighted emission of millions of years worth of sequestered carbon over the past few hundred years. Since it should be apparent to everyone that stopping the emission of carbon is not likely we need to decide what we are going to do to mitigate the worst effects, the magnitude of which we don't know yet and are working hard to understand. Whether you are on the left or right of the political spectrum this is the reality you need to think about. It really is time to begin planning a response to the likeliest changes and spending more effort on understanding the system. If this doesn't make sense to you, you need to go away from your computer for a while and think about it. Your political beliefs and deeply held personal convictions are irrelevant.