Of those 100 travelers in a busy public space, about 8 are farting at any given moment.

If that heat and gas could be captured, we might have an alternate energy revolution, especially within a few blocks of a Taco Bell.

Our Constitution guarantees us a number of ways to work through government for change.

The problem with protests is that by working around these methods, the methods are weakened. In addition, people start believing that dramatic public attention-getting is more important than reasoned political argument.

As the only people who truly profit from this, the media love it, coming and going. One great reason to support piracy is to weaken the profits of Hollywood and the news-entertainment media.

The only reason people like you think climate change is politically driven myth is because you weren't paying attention *before* it became a political issue.

Try the 1970s consensus that warming was occurring:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-said-about-global-cooling.html

This has always been a political issue which exists as a proxy for denial of the actual underlying problem, which is overpopulation.

Global warming existed to justify wealth transfer from the first to third worlds.

It was always a political agenda, with scientists taken along for the ride because they could get funding that way.

Michael Crichton's attack on global warming was particularly devastating. But what the crowd wants to believe, they simply pretend is reality and call the rest of us "ignorant."

But to deny the utter and overwhelming reality of the results of vast quantities of climate scientists (including some who came in skeptical when they started, but realized that, hey, the data say what the data say) is simply wrong.

Their conclusions are projections, not hard evidence, and they are also of unclean hands because their funding is overwhelmingly political in nature.

You are denying the bigger problem in favor of a political creation.

I normally don't tell people they're "simply wrong," but after reading your pompous reply to me, I felt turnabout was fair play.

Problem: the number of humans grows constantly on a world of finite space.

Conclusion: eventually, resources will run out, and we will commit ecocide as we try to use technology to provide enough food, water, medicine, air, etc. for our population.

However, people don't want to hear about this. It requires too much thinking.

Solution: invent a symbol for it all called "global warming."

The problem with this is that it's the same strategy anti-drug workshops use. "You better not smoke pot, or you'll end up a homeless bum with a criminal record!"

First time they smoke and that does not happen, they'll assume it's safe.

Global warming proponents have been howling about imminent apocalypse for years, and so have desensitized their audience. This is because their main point is a political symbol, not a reasoned scientific view.

A true-blue nutcase will always think of themselves first, and so they will always cover their own asses or make their own errors appear as successes.

Thus, often management will look from above or look at metrics and conclude that the psychopath is the most competent team member.

Have seen this happen a few times too...

I've worked with enough people who are nuts to think that if we're going to test the leaders, we should test everyone and put the psychopaths out of the workplace entirely.

One bad person on a team can not only make life miserable, but ruin the work output of the team, drive away anyone competent and damage everyone else's careers when they're associated with the failed team's product.