I prefer the term "Anthropogenic Climate Change", because I think Global Warming gives a too-soft impression of whats happening.

Yes, the world is warming, on average, but what kills is not the average temperature rising by one or two degrees, its drought,
extreme events such as storms, ocean acidification, etc. The danger is that people think we're heading for a Mediterranean climate here in N Europe, etc. and that global warming might not be a bad thing for chilly Ireland, for example, when massive droughts and crop failures (across Europe and elsewhere) are starting to threaten global food supplies.

Its ironic that the denialists also prefer the term climate change, because it sounds milder, but thats just the scale of the education exercise ahead of us.

Yes. You failed to enumerate and list every issue

Correct. I don't think it is possible to enumerate every issue, but your claim presumes otherwise.

Science proceeds by falsification. In the example of gravity - the work of Copernicus / Kepler / Newton disproved the existing Heliocentric view.
Newtons theory was/is an extraordinarily effective theory: it matched observations and produced predictions that came true for the next
three hundred years. Yes, it was superceded by Einsteins work, but in practice Engineers and Scientists use Newtons theory to this day for
almost all work. Hence, no I wouldn't say Newton was "spectacularly wrong", especially given the evidence available.

Because you can (almost) never prove a theory true, it looks dangerously possible to be dismissive of any idea you don't like.
But this isn't the case. Consider anthropogenic climate change (ACC): while our existing theories of climate are provisional, the opposing idea that there is no ACC is wrong. There is no theory that explains the observations without ACC.

Ok, by "faith" I mean accepting /believing without evidence. (belief is another dangerous word: I don't think scientists and religious mean the same thing by it, and I try to avoid it). Particle physicists didn't have "faith" it would be found. They provisionally accepted the hypothesis in order to investigate and test it. Holding and testing hypotheses are not faith; the "belief" is provisional and explicitly not accepted yet.

Nope, I've not looked at all the evidence. Vast swathes of phenomenology for example (the changes in species extent / growing seasons, etc due to climate change) I've accepted from my biologist colleagues without examining in any detail.
But others: I have explicitly examined the evidence, and been involved in doing so, for example in precipitation and temperature change in Ireland.
I've read all the reviews I can (eg the IPCC reports) and made a deliberate point of examining all the contrary evidence and papers I can and found them wanting. There was a sufficiently small volume that yes, it is possible to read it all. And over the last decade or so, its just about all been disproven.

In the larger picture: there is no countervailing theory. There is no theory or hypothesis that explains the observations without human-induced climate change. Our theories do predict the evidence, within observational and measurement error to the point that they are, I think, effective theories: that is, you can use them for policy purposes. Yes, I'm painfully aware of the limitations of the theories and models (working on them on a daily basis) and they will be improved. But "spectacularly wrong", as in unfit for use, no.

Many, but only one atom theory.

The atom theory is that matter is made up of atoms, finite quanta that cannot be infinitely subdivided.
Hence, you cannot have less than one atom of sodium, etc. The antithesis was that you could, that you could
infinitely divide the amount of a substance and still maintain that substance.

That atoms have subdivisions in themselves (protons, electrons, neutrons), does not negate the theory as originally stated.

Why?

The trouble with string theory is the lack of ability to falsify (at this stage). A beautiful theory is worth exploring, and you cut the theorists some slack for a while to develop it and come up with experiments that could test it. By now, we're getting impatient.

Climate change is wholly different. There are hundreds of thousands of datasets empirically backing up the predictions made from hundred-year old science (the physics of greenhouse cases from Tyndall dates back to the 19th century).

No.
Evidence, please?
Can you show that people have been "almost always" wrong on every issue? On gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, on quantum mechanics, on the atom theory of nature, on evolution, on ...
You can point to individual anecodatal points, but "almost always" and "spectacularly wrong" on every issue is a very strong statement.

Also, "faith" has no place in science. I provisionally accept lots of things, based on the scientific consensus of my colleagues. Especially with the overwhelming amount of evidence to investigate. Contrary evidence trumps consensus, but in the case of climate change, it isn't there.

Why? you can have clean rivers in Urban areas if you try.

For example, we now have trout returning to two main rivers in Dublin, Ireland (the Liffey and the Tolka, I believe).
Increasingly people are swimming (again?) in urban rivers in Europe. can be done.

Maybe not?

Methane on its own doesn't have a smell. For safety, another gas like methanethiol is typically added, so that people can detect leaks.
Perhaps these leaks are pure methane?

Wrong way round, folks.

Guess who lobbied to ensure the US weather data was made "public" (ie. available to Accuweather, local TV networks, etc.)?

There is a nice little story in Ireland about the wren being the king of birds. All the birds got together and had a competition to see who was best.
They decided the matter by a seeing who could fly the highest. The Eagle thought it would win easily, but when it got as high as it could, the little wren, which had been sitting on the eagles shoulder, jumped a foot higher and won.

Similarly with public and private weather services. The vast bulk of the work is done by the public services - building expensive
satellites, observational networks, computer model development, etc. The results are then made public, and the private sector squeezes
some added value out (by adding better graphics, presentation, etc.) and sells the product.

Now if you can do this and make money selling a product people want, fine. But don't kid anybody that the private sector
is a drop-in replacement and better than the public sector one.

Estimates are it takes 1-5 M/ mile of coastline to evacuate before a hurricane.

Improved observations from the 1970s cut the estimates for where a hurricane will make landfall from ~300miles to ~50 miles radius,
(24 hours out, I think; I'm not an American, but remembering numbers quoted from a US colleague in the business).

So, better forecasts cut the cost of evacuating from a hurricane by ~100 Million a time, easy to save 12 gigabucks a decade.

Yes, we do measure this. Every met service I know of (e.g. NOAA) has to explain its budget.
I'm not sure of the US numbers, but in the UK the return on investment in meteorology is ~x11 fold, according to external auditors.

If Fox News was reliably bad, you could simply take their headlines and invert them to find out the truth. In order to be completely useless it actually has to get things right occasionally.

Toleration of people and their rights to autonomy.

I'm intolerant of _actions_, because these impinge on other people, and hence need to be justified.

Ideas: no. The world is full of bad ideas, many of which I've had myself. We need to examine and criticize ideas, examine their consequences, etc. No ideas (such as religions) get a free ride. Having held many bad ideas in the past, I don't hold that against people. We're all seeking after truth and a better life.

As for "general intolerance of all things Southern", the key point you're looking for is prejudice: treat people as individuals, look for their humanity, rather than one of a class. Once you're willing to dismiss people for being racists/black/jew, that way lies the ovens.

Because, as stated by Google, it isn't.

I will use Google and get / give a degraded service in Privacy mode by giving them less information, possibly getting more ads from Google and a less-targeted response.

With Google, the idea (the implicit "contract") was that your data was available and used by Google for targetted advertising, but not passed to third parties. I don't mind Google knowing of my fondness for Twinkies, and my purchasing of them, but I _do_ mind if my health insurer knows, for example.

Easy, Potato came before Sarge :-)

But Debian helps answer the original question: when Debian was first being developed, the pre-stable code was in a directory on an ftp site labelled "1.0". Unfortunately people didn't realise it wasn't ready yet, and got burned.

So after this, Debian came up with the naming system, with "Buzz" being the first. When it was ready for release, a symlink
1.1 -> buzz was added, and Debian 1.1 was born.

Yet people prefer the names.

Part of the reason names are preferable is that an OS consists of components that will be updated-in-time. Its not a static piece of software, but a "release" you "track". If you're OS is "Debian squeeze" then when Debian squeeze is updated with fixes, it remains "squeeze", (but a precise version number may be updated).

No, of course everybody remembers it was greed:

New International Version (©1984)
"'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
Exekiel 16:49.

I strongly disagree. Pharma is not interested in developing antibiotics because there is no profit. The problem is not thresholds for drug testing; its time. and antibiotics and vaccines are not needed "just in poorer countries". They are needed everywhere, now. (or antibiotics: on demand). We've only just dodged the bullet several times: we came extremely close to a global pandemic with SARS, but were lucky in how it spread. Tuberculosis, etc. threaten now.

It takes time to develop and produce the drugs. This isn't simply a matter of bureaucracy; even with flu vaccines, which we had for bird flu, would take 12-24 months of global production to get made and distributed if it hit tomorrow. But, short of customers, they will not be made. Hence getting them ready is a societal need that the profit motive won't directly solve.

Similarly with food: we don't have the strains of drought-resistant wheat, etc. to feed 12-15 billion people. Developing them involves known techniques that will simply take years to get sufficient seed stock, and work hasn't started yet. Again, time: we can't afford to wait until people are starving and willing to pay to start doing the necessary research.

That research has no guaranteed outcome is no just reason for not doing it. "It may fail" is an argument for a company or individual; on a societal or governmental level it translates to "We decided to let billions starve to death because we might not succeed". Thats not justifiable parsimony with tax money: its genocide.