"(as though being in bed with somebody who happily served Adolph Hitler is some how not enough...)" As Jews in Nazi-occupied Hungary, Soros' family were extremely vulnerable. (Over 400K Hungarian Jews were killed at Auschwitz). Soros' parents hid him with a Christian family, posing as their godson. His "godfather" took him to work one day; his job included inventorying belongings confiscated from Jews. Soros was 14 at the time. Claiming that he happily served "Adolph" Hitler is spectacularly ignorant at best; ugly & anti-semitic at worst.

Heard of these folks several years ago; no idea how they've been progressing. https://www.aresnorthamerica.c...

Obama's house is about 35' above sea level and buffered from storm surges by a large pond. The Time Warner Building is at only 15', but in a market that, like Miami, is in denial of reality. Lousy examples from which to argue the science.

Obama's house is about 35' above sea level and is buffered from storm surges by a large pond. Gore's house is nearly 500' above sea level. Try again?

"There is a concern the virus may be airborne...."
Calm down.
"When it comes to viruses, it is always difficult to predict what they can or cannot do. It is instructive, however, to see what viruses have done in the past, and use that information to guide our thinking. Therefore we can ask: has any human virus ever changed its mode of transmission? The answer is no. We have been studying viruses for over 100 years, and we’ve never seen a human virus change the way it is transmitted."
http://www.virology.ws/2014/09...

The Oregon Petition -- of 30,000 signatures fame -- has some credibility problems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...

When I was in high school in the dark ages (late 1970s), coal companies were excited to tell us all about their new clean coal technology, magnetohydrodynamics (MHD). Whee! Problem solved. Except it never went into production, as was the case with every other "clean coal" proposal before and since. We're not going to see reduced emissions until we mandate them. Also, I didn't realize that we "made" coal any more than we "make" wind or solar.

You did see the part where Obama calls for investment in clean coal and safe nuclear power, right? It's clear on the (stupid JPEG formatted) infographic the White House provided.

OTOH, when Britain moved from toxic coal gas (then the standard way to commit suicide), suicides dropped by a third and never went back up. I don't know what dispondent people do, but despondent people are like everybody else: When they want to do something, they are constrained by the means and opportunities provided in the environment around them. Guns are an extremely convenient way to try to commit suicide; you just need to get your nerve up for an instant and it's over. Knives? CO from car exhaust? You have to be determined for quite a while before you'll get where you're headed.

* is the World is warmer than it has been for the last two thousand years? Why is the answer to this question relevant? There are many variables that affect climate (forcing factors). It's entirely possible that we've experienced cooling over the first 1700 of the last 2000 years; that has nothing to do with what degree (ha!) of change we should expect from our cranking CO2 up past any level we've seen in the last 15 million years. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/last-time-carbon-dioxide-levels-111074.aspx * is the warning of the last three hundreds years (which is undeniable) human induced? You quote Watts. He (unsurprisingly) gets the science wrong: http://grist.org/climate-energy/co2-doesnt-lead-it-lags/ * why are scientists who use the Scientific Method and go against the narrative being vilified? and 1. Who is being vilified? Names, please, of climate scientists who have been vilified for arguing against AGW. I know of very few -- Lindzen and Singer, perhaps, the latter being entirely deserving of vilification to the point of outright dismissal from the conversation, given his enthusiastic and utterly disingenuous defense of the asbestos and tobacco industries and the former appearing to simply be a contrarian in general. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/03/misrepresentation-from-lindzen/ Meanwhile, climate scientists who report that we're headed in a dangerous direction are receiving death threats. No, really: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-06/battle-over-climate-change 2. Controversial research results are a dream. Anybody who could come up with a data-driven defensible argument disproving AGW would have their career made for them. * global climate models "Much of the global warming information is based on 'extrapolations' (projections) of short-term trends." Hm. Seems like lots of folks are running tests of current GCMs against paleo data, which undermines if not invalidates your point. http://www.research.noaa.gov/climate/t_modeling.html#figure4 http://www.giss.nasa.gov/projects/gcm/ http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf I know that climate change, as a global problem, is painful for libertarians to consider. However, as Feynman said, nature cannot be fooled. In a battle between physics and philosophy, I bet on physics. Apologies if the formatting is broken in this post; apparently Safari on a Mac doesn't want to insert line breaks.

Basically saw this in life a couple of years ago -- left front collision between Big Old Boat and Little New Midsize thing. Nobody wore seat belts. Midsize passengers were walking around, talking on their phones, etc., etc., due to crumple zones and airbags. Old Boat driver had two broken ankles and a probably concussion; Old Boat passenger was ejected, and I think things did not end well for him. I second the motion: Modern cars are safer by miles.