Preferably ones I'd be interested in. You can stay behind.

To know me is to love me.

I suggest the differentiator of a "soul".

I've got soul. And I'm super-bad.

There's still a data chute on the side of my house that leads down to the data-fired server.

If you can't come up with a proper automotive analogy for a technology, get off my fucking Internet.

If I 3D-print a Sieve of Eratosthenes, can I use it to drain cooked pasta?

Air travel should not be justifiable under any circumstances if AGW is true. It can only be justified if AGW is false.

I just want to amplify Mr Marxist Hacker's comment.

You could start a graduate level course in logic from those two simple sentences. Here they are again:

Air travel should not be justifiable under any circumstances if AGW is true. It can only be justified if AGW is false.

Impressive. It's like saying, "If drowning is real, then no bathing should be justified under any circumstances. Bathing can only be justified if drowning is false."

I'm 61 and I was taught this in school.

This is some very impressive evidence. I'm sure you couldn't be mistaken.

Please cite more than a handful of scientists who actually suggested there would be another ice age back in the 1970s. Otherwise, we're just going to have to disallow your impressive memory of grade school as proof of anything.

And don't forget to schedule that colonoscopy. At your age, it should be done every 5 years. And who knows, you may find that citation.

This excerpt from the 2016 presidential debate has been brought to you by Eli Lilly & Co, the maker of CialisTM.

[reason.com]

Read my statement. Now read your response. Do you see any connection?

I said this:

here was never,,,ever a time when more than tiny handful of scientists thought there would be another ice age.

How many of those 18 (count 'em, eighteen!") SPECTACULARLY INCORRECT things scientists said in 1970 include an ice age?

A handful, you say? Speak up, I can't hear you. Oh, yeah, I almost forgot: The predictions of a "new ice age" were concoctions of the media, rather than the result of scientific studies:

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Now why don't you try to be a little more honest about that "complete list" of ice age predictions? You're old enough to know better than to peddle that shit here and think it'll just fly unchallenged.

sure, its only a certain class of weapon.... for now. slippery slope and all

Clearly, the slope isn't very slippery, now is it?

No, it is actually VERY VERY SIMPLE.
Yet, later....
Now: to observe the actual effects on the world, is not so easy.

The fact of the matter is that your examples aren't a direct cause/effect. If they were, we could see immediate results yet we don't. Plus the planet is large enough to have large "micro-climates", resulting in even more obfuscation of the data.

Of course, it doesn't help that climate change doomsayers have been at it for 40+ years now, the doomsaying itself a product of how difficult climate science is. Weren't we all supposed to be under 20 feet of water by now? The ice at the poles gone, the poles themselves being the only habitable parts of the world left? And so on, and so on...

Face it; climate science is *hard*. So difficult, in fact, that the weather forecasters still get it wrong. Understanding the science is restricted to the few who have made it their lives to understand it, and of course who knows how biased they are. You'll never sell the general public that way.

No. You have to make the issues smaller and localized. Personable.

you do know that blows both ways...

Yes, it works both ways:

Climate doesn't equal weather, and weather doesn't equal climate. The only fallacy comes from trying to point to a town that had a record cold spell to make a pronouncement about what's happening to the climate.

Apparently less well known in the UCSB and APS communities you are getting your information from is his other impairment. He died on May 26th, 2011, at the age of 87.

His death made him an easy spokesman for you climate deniers, because he's no longer around to contradict.

when a scientist who initially buys into a theory that seems reasonable on its face, and then changes his mind after being confronted by new information, you presume he is SENILE????

Professor Lewis' senility is not connected to his opinions regarding scientific theories.

Are you a physician? Have you examined the professor before rendering your diagnosis?

His impairment is well-known in the UCSB and APS communities.

he masses of people who aren't "scientists" won't be able to tell the difference anyway and we can just accuse them of being ignorant.

Here's a news flash: the masses of people are ignorant. It's not an accusation, it's a simple observation.