Slashdot Mirror

Mail Online has a better article, because the third pic in the article is of a hottie using a laptop to browse Facebook:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1255888/Facebook-founder-Mark-Zuckerberg-hacked-emails-rivals-journalists.html

Of course, she's even prettier naked:

http://www.crestock.com/image/2137917-diamond.aspx

Actually, some even less fortunate people may end up with 4 parents.

We need some better pics.
From home it looks now, my best bet is that it's just an ornament of some sort.

This looks somewhat better than the pics in the summary link. (Or have I not found the good ones?)

Generally taking a photo of someone and publishing it requires permission from the person photographed.

I'm sure these guys were more than happy to sign the release form. And they must have used a big stack of paper for this one

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

Don't cite the Daily Mail if you can avoid it. (For the reason why, read the article carefully, looking for the facts and the opinion, and the "weasel words" like "may" or "could". Then see if the article has any relation to the headline. Unfortunately, fear sells this type of newspaper.)

Thanks, didn't know that. Try to use at least semi-decent places for news/facts (why I won't link to sites like The Register). In the end, it isn't a major issue. The camera's are there and there still is crime showing that its not a full-proof fix.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

Don't cite the Daily Mail if you can avoid it. (For the reason why, read the article carefully, looking for the facts and the opinion, and the "weasel words" like "may" or "could". Then see if the article has any relation to the headline. Unfortunately, fear sells this type of newspaper.)

How do I protect myself from a skimmer inside a gas pump?

Or use a bike. Better for you and the environment too at the same time.

Okay, that's one problem avoided. So then how would one protect themselves from a skimmer on any other type of card reader, like at an ATM, vending machine, or a gas pump since no, you can't always just bike everywhere.

Ok, on a serious note about the problem. How to figure out a solution to this problem. Issue is, there isn't a simple answer.

Some might say we just need more education on the subject. But lets be honest. That won't work, never has, never will. People have been told that about everything from health (eat less processed/junk food, exercise more, ect... and as there are more people obese today then ever shows how well that works), to drugs (I've heard of the problems with things like crack since the 80's when I was born, and it's still being used today), to the basics of never share passwords but these things still happen.

Others might say we need more surveillance with cameras and police. But this isn't working either with Britain having millions of CCTV and also being the most violent country in Europe ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html ). So this is also not a solution.

Other things need to be taken into consideration. Why are these happening? People are need money more then before with a lack of jobs due to the recession. Also the ease of availability of these problems (these machines are showing up in more and more places). Also a lack of security in these newer forms of payment that are shown to be insecure ( http://tv.boingboing.net/2008/03/19/how-to-hack-an-rfide.html ) yet still forced upon the consumer due to the millions funded into these technologies and the fear of admitting these losses to shareholders.

Many of these company's and people are no doubt hoping things like DMCA laws and their inclusion into global laws like the ACTA will help get rid of the problems since it will make the technology illegal (these break digital security locks). Thing is, again it won't work. Drug growers have shown that when these problems come about, people will just go underground and look for other ways to do this. This was shown during the Regan years of the war against drugs. As time passed, it was harder to smuggle weed from places like Afghanistan, so people started shipping hash. Same type of drug but smaller and easier to ship. After that came hash oil since it was again smaller and the law started to figure out about hash. When hash oil was found out, people started to look into hydroponics (a new growing method for plants of ANY kind) and found they could grow a better crop (better watered, feed, controlled, ect...) in the country bypassing the issue of smuggling it in.And just like pot dealers/growers showed that the law means little in the end to get what they want, same will happen with this and as with every crime in history.

Actually, Chinese traditional medicine might be even worse than homeopathy. Homeopathy may be a load of rubbish, but at least it doesn't have a billion people craving rare animal penis.

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

At least now we know why they were illegally denying FOI requests for their data.

UN climate body admits 'mistake' on Himalayan glaciers

How many more "mistakes", falsifications, and fabrications need to be exposed before this scam goes buh-bye?

So you are saying "skepticism" will finally whither away.

Ok, but 2009 wasn't and 2000-2009 wasn't. Don't believe me, believe Phil Jones.

Sure. And Phil says: yup, is so. Oh you mean Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995? Oh, why don't we look at what he actually said?

Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

Now to get this clear: this was one question out of "several gathered from climate sceptics". And you can see that it was asked in a very specific way, that could be answered truthfully like Prof. Jones did, or in some other way. And the Daily Mail, known mouthpiece of British denialists promptly posted one of the two prepared articles. The other BTW would have been titled: "Climategate II: Prof. Jones caught lying again."

And if you fucking have to ask why that's a gross misrepresentation of what Jones said (a denier would call lesser things "a lie") - you have no function discussing what's for dinner, let alone climate change.

On one hand we have thousands of climatologists from dozens of countries armed with super computers and the resources of government. They tell us we have a problem.

Yes, yes they do tell us we have a problem. At the same time, they ask or demand more funding to study it further.

Arguing against them are a bunch of people, most of whom are not climatologists or even scientists, who do not have super computers or any data of their own. They argue that there is a worldwide conspiracy to falsify data.

EXACTLY. These same "scientists" refuse to give out the raw data, along with any information about how they're massaging the data. In fact, many "studies" aren't even based on data, just thoughts and conjecture. Some of these same scientists have recently done an about-face and have said that there has been INSIGNIFICANT WARMING for the past 15 years. So now, even Phil Jones has "come clean" about the information.

Thousands of scientists from Europe, Asia, Australasia and the Americas all working in harmony to defraud the world, to drive up taxes and bring down civilisation - all led by the anti-christ Al Gore.

Yep ... although anti-christ is a little strong ... I would say "useful idiot". Al is as much a scientist as those not buying the "global warming" fraud. Although he does stand to make billions from continuing "global warming". That alone should cause red flags to be raised by ANY believer in "global warming".

Think about who you are siding with and why you believe in what you believe.

I prefer not to drink the kool-aid.

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

Imagine I have a coin that I know from past experience is double-headed; it comes up heads 100% of the time. If I only consider my most recent flip, that's not enough data to prove that it was weighted for that flip. That doesn't mean it wasn't weighted for that flip. Of course it was weighted for that flip, it's weighted for every flip. But I didn't consider enough flips to prove it.

In an analogous way, considering the data since 1995 is not enough to prove that the earth has been warming. That doesn't mean the earth hasn't been warming since 1995, it means that you're not considering enough of the data.

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

At least now we know why they were illegally denying FOI requests for their data.

UN climate body admits 'mistake' on Himalayan glaciers

How many more "mistakes", falsifications, and fabrications need to be exposed before this scam goes buh-bye?

So: 1. Phil Jones did not say there had been no global warming since 1995. He said that it (barely) wasn't statistically significant since the time period was too short for the statistics (ie, not enough data). Oddly enough, had they asked about 1994 or any year prior to 1995 the answer would have been yes. So the question was pretty much a set up. 2. It appears that they did fully reply to the FOI request, giving Mr. Keenan all the data he asked for. The data was also published on their website, so it's not like anybody couldn't find it. 3. The IPCC document is something like 2400 pages and so far there has only been one error found. I'd be surprised if there aren't more. I mean, look at your response: you only had about 4 sentences and two of them were incorrect. :)

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

At least now we know why they were illegally denying FOI requests for their data.

UN climate body admits 'mistake' on Himalayan glaciers

How many more "mistakes", falsifications, and fabrications need to be exposed before this scam goes buh-bye?

That is 106kg, that is FAT ... Once you weight has reached triple digits (in KG), STOP EATING.

Doesn't that rather depend on how tall he is?

You can taunt this guy at you own risk (I warn you, he's probably fast enough to catch you). Or either of these jolly chaps.

" Fatties are now using it to vent rage over how cruel the world is for discriminating against them for being fat. "

Fat celebrities, not your regular jo' smuck. Besides Kevin's not that fat, at least not compared to my notion of "too fat to fly" (see photo).

I'm glad Kevin's getting the word out because apparently Southwest has a habit of kicking off big guys, and it's ironic Kevin twitted the "too fat to fly" diet because a UK couple, weighing 530 lbs combine, really did lose weight after being "too fat to fly"

Tell that to Phil Jones.

More citations:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7177230/New-errors-in-IPCC-climate-change-report.html

http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/international/the-hottest-hoax-in-the-world

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009081.ece

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html

http://digg.com/environment/Scientist_Admits_IPCC_Used_Faked_Data

Does anyone remember this event happening?
 
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvited-guest-Chinese-sub-pops-middle-U-S-Navy-exercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html
 
Yes, that really happened in real life. It also happened in Tom Clancy's book "Executive Orders". Let me summarize the headline for you real quick, The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced
 

When the U.S. Navy deploys a battle fleet on exercises, it takes the security of its aircraft carriers very seriously indeed.
At least a dozen warships provide a physical guard while the technical wizardry of the world's only military superpower offers an invisible shield to detect and deter any intruders.
That is the theory. Or, rather, was the theory. Uninvited guest: A Chinese Song Class submarine, like the one that sufaced by the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk
American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.
By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier.
According to senior Nato officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy.
The Americans had no idea China's fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such a threat.
One Nato figure said the effect was "as big a shock as the Russians launching Sputnik" - a reference to the Soviet Union's first orbiting satellite in 1957 which marked the start of the space age.
The incident, which took place in the ocean between southern Japan and Taiwan, is a major embarrassment for the Pentagon. Battle stations: The Kitty Hawk carries 4,500 personnel
The lone Chinese vessel slipped past at least a dozen other American warships which were supposed to protect the carrier from hostile aircraft or submarines.
And the rest of the costly defensive screen, which usually includes at least two U.S. submarines, was also apparently unable to detect it.
According to the Nato source, the encounter has forced a serious re-think of American and Nato naval strategy as commanders reconsider the level of threat from potentially hostile Chinese submarines.
It also led to tense diplomatic exchanges, with shaken American diplomats demanding to know why the submarine was "shadowing" the U.S. fleet while Beijing pleaded ignorance and dismissed the affair as coincidence.
Analysts believe Beijing was sending a message to America and the West demonstrating its rapidly-growing military capability to threaten foreign powers which try to interfere in its "backyard".
The People's Liberation Army Navy's submarine fleet includes at least two nuclear-missile launching vessels.
Its 13 Song Class submarines are extremely quiet and difficult to detect when running on electric motors.
Commodore Stephen Saunders, editor of Jane's Fighting Ships, and a former Royal Navy anti-submarine specialist, said the U.S. had paid relatively little attention to this form of warfare since the end of the Cold War.
He said: "It was certainly a wake-up call for the Americans.
"It would tie in with what we see the Chinese trying to do, which appears to be to deter the Americans from interfering or operating in their backyard, particularly in relation to Taiwan."
In January China carried a successful missile test, shooting down a satellite in orbit for the first time.

...So who's to say something similar won't happen this time, except in cyberspace? Imagine, in the middle of a simulated hack, the Chinese government actually hacks our systems during a military exercise. Knowing what we know now, it's not improbable.

Do you have any statistics to back this up? I went to http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/cri-crime and added up the per capita statistics for murder, rapes, and assaults and it looks like the UK has more violent crime than the US. The US has more murders, but that is a relatively small percentage of violent crime.

This article also says Britain has more violent crime than the US, and has the most crime in Europe. I know it's easy mod points to say anything bad about the U.S., but reasonable people need to try to avoid the temptation unless it's factual.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1237423/Stolen-Auschwitz-sign-Arbeit-macht-frei-turns-hundreds-miles-away-cut-pieces.html

Based on... what? The non peer reviewed and questionable paper they used to show they aren't melting?

I don't think I know what you're talking about. What paper (peer reviewed or otherwise) showed that they are not melting?

Interesting how people will complain about a problem with a large study, but ignore those same problems with the study the supports the belief.

What large study? 35 year quote that was used by a magazine, and then quoted in the report.

I sure as hell hope those glaciers are still there for you grand kids to enjoy. If the paper they based criticism is true, the glaciers wont' be there for you grand children, children.

Perhaps you haven't heard, but according to some scientists, global warming is taking a break
I think it's safe to say that the glaciers will still be there.

My Bias? facts as the current data support them. The few errors in a study this large really isn't unexpected. Science. Sadly, instead of learning context of the error, it's impact, and what part of the IPCC it occurred in, people jump to their pet belief and how this mistake 'proves' the other hundreds of papers are wrong.

For science to truly be science, it must be unbiased. When science is used to manipulate people, and all those scientists with views to the contrary are shunned and gagged, it ceases to be science - and becomes an abomination.

I tried http://www.dailymail.co.uk/* but it didn't work. seriously though - this seems open to abuse. Presumably they have to get a threshold number of complaints before they will look at something.

Implementation of full body scans as described won't do much except harass the traveling public and invade our privacy. The terrorists will just move into a new method of bringing their weapons on the aircraft.

The academic consensus is very strong.

True.

Popular media might not portray it very reliably or well, but it's there.

I would disagree. Were it not portrayed as well it wouldn't be followed like a religion by so many.

Academia is the most reliable institution for determining truth that we have.

Yup. True.

What it says might not be aimed at countering a spirited opposition by industry, the faithful, or the politically inspired, but that does not change things.

No there, I disagree. There needs to be SOME check to make sure that "academia", as you call it, isn't obsorbed in it's own infallibility to the point of zealotry. There is a history in academia in which it has acted in a not-so honorable fashion. For reference, review the "longitude prize" or more recently M theory.

With the recent email scandal and now proven illegal coverup, there are STRONG indications that "academia" is once again wrongfully going down the path of blind certainty and not just activly preventing theories/papers from making in to peer review journals, but more insidiously, young scientists attempting to enter the field will avoid it. In M theory, the reason would was "who'll fund my research?".

You might "make up your own mind", but if you don't study the field, you might as well be making stuff up - without relevant background, we can't understand the fields.

You don't need to be a climate scientist or meteorologist to recognize malfeasance.

No, you can't act as you like.

False.

That's not what freedom of religion is about.

Yes, it is.

It's "hands off my mind", not "don't tell me what to do".

It's both.

You're simply wrong about Gore. The academic consensus is very strong.

False, and false. But even if the latter was true, I've already demonstrated that the consensus view -- that AGW is a "fact" -- is not based on actual science.

Popular media might not portray it very reliably or well, but it's there.

Please stop being an ass. I went into great detail from my own research, and you're pretending that this is about media portrayal.

Academia is the most reliable institution for determining truth that we have.

No, it's not. Institutions are not reliable for determining truth at all. The only reliable way to determine truth is to actually invesitgate, interpret, discuss, and debate.

I mean, you're sitting here saying I should trust researchers when just today it was unassailably demonstrated that some climate scientists flaunted the law and lied to prevent having to release their climate data to the public.

You might "make up your own mind", but if you don't study the field, you might as well be making stuff up

Your appeal-to-authority fallacy won't get you anywhere. When these people are kicking out scientists who disagree with them; hiding their own data explicitly so the public won't get to see it; and blatantly misrepresenting their own study's findings in order to push their view ... and you accuse ME of making stuff up?

Not to mention the fact that you are clearly being hypocritical about Gore: he has not much more knowledge about the field than me (and in some areas, less), so why give him a pass? Oh right, because he's on the side of this manufactured "consensus." That's no excuse for your double standard.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1247049/Nobel-Peace-Prize-winner-Barack-Obama-ups-spending-nuclear-weapons-George-Bush.html

Once again, the foreign media has no trouble at all pointing out the hypocrisy of President Breakfast Obanana!

Even passengers who have been pre-allocated a seat on an airplane are asked to move when they find themselves sitting next to a strangers child.

Businessman sues BA 'for treating men like perverts'

If it such a big issue with the airline, they should update their booking system to make sure children are sitting next to a guardian or parent and not a stranger.

bogeyman:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html

I thought it was the Chinese because it was after the accounts of Chinese Human rights activists.

Chinese government has full control inside the country, except at the offices of Google. So what is easier to do:

1. Mount a cyber-attack on a US company, an attack that is bound to be detected, and an attack that has no lasting advantage (everyone knows that the accounts are compromised.)
2. Covertly install keyloggers into suspects' computers, or otherwise capture their login/password. Then access their email for years, and nobody knows! Hell, if they use Firefox the passwords aren't even encrypted, all the secret police needs to do is to power the computer up and click a few buttons.

This reasoning shows that the attack is most useful not to the Chinese government but to people who want to put Google and China on a collision course. If the government watches some people it never lets them know that they are watched.

What we have here is a recreation of Litvinenko's poisoning, only done on the Net. In both cases countries were blamed, though any intelligent observer instantly sees that such an extravagant method is not something that secret services ever use. If a secret service wants someone dead, the guy just commits suicide.

pissing away dollars chasing unfounded "scientific" claims about global warming. Another inconvenient truth for the Church of Gaia: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html

"Why should you trust the IPCC?"

Your wonderful description of the scientific method describes elegantly why I trust it so much.

But if a source is found to put out false data, not by honest mistake but well aware the data is bad, can that source be trusted again?

I'm not saying I necessarily trust the daily mail on that, but the link from earlier in this thread at least seems to suggest this would be the case:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#ixzz0dUoPiTkG

We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was "grey literature" [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal].......It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action."

The guy basically said he knew it might not be true, but he put it in anyway because he thought it might influence policy-makers. How can you not be annoyed by that?

At very least when I read the IPCC report now, I'm going to have to check their references, until now I was willing to accept it as fairly accurate.

CO-ORDINATING LEAD AUTHOR OF IPCC 2007 Report on ASIA ADMITS HE KNEW DATA WASN'T VERIFIED.

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

There we have it. Scientists with an agenda.

Who's being naive?

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report's chapter on Asia, said: 'It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action. 'It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html

Done!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1147783/Worlds-wrist-watch-video-phone-available-Christmas.html

Oh, you may still say what you want. Just anywhere. I may still post things on the internet. But I should be prepared to be arrested for things I didn't even write. You may still protest against politicians. But you'll be sent to areas where nobody cares and certainly no camera will see your protest.

In case you didn't notice, you're still allowed to say what you want, what's limited is your exposure. And what is it good for to talk about grievances if it's made sure that nobody can hear you? It's classic constitution circumvention. You're not silenced because you can't say what you want, you're silenced by taking away any possible audience that might hear you.

• http://blogs.zdnet.com/mobile-gadgeteer/?p=1799
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/may/19/gps-close-to-breakdown
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1184550/GPS-satellite-close-breakdown-fail-2010--leading-motorists-straight-trouble.html
• http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/05/18/daily24.html
• http://www.digitaltrends.com/international/gps-satellites-to-start-failing-next-year/

Considering most of these articles were on slashdot before, you don't have much of an excuse.

A not all that reliable source has suggested that stealing emails in the UK may have been done by China as well: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1238638/Chinese-hackers-linked-Warmergate-climate-change-leaked-emails-controversy.html

GM crops are already doing more harm than good. Just ask the Indian cotton farmers, for instance...

It has been proved that they also have lower yields and require more pesticides in the long run than conventional crops.

I'm not saying that GM plants and research should be discarded, or that they can't be used to actually get better yields and use less pesticides. I'm just saying that for now, a few corporations are focused on making piles of money by making farmers entirely depend on their seeds and their pesticides, no matter what it takes. And that particular use of GM crops (and of patents lawsuits over crops) should be outlawed.

So you don't believe the IPCC's scientists then ?

Mini Ice age predicted, with 30 years of global cooling at least, co2 effect on climate grossly overblown, models in agreement with co2-climate link wrong.

Now, I'm not saying that anything in your post is either wrong or right, but I feel I have to point out that if your best reference for a science story is the Daily Mail, then this is an argument that you are not going to win.

So you don't believe the IPCC's scientists then ?

Mini Ice age predicted, with 30 years of global cooling at least, co2 effect on climate grossly overblown, models in agreement with co2-climate link wrong.

Yet last week in Geneva, at the UN's World Climate Conference -- an annual gathering of the so-called "scientific consensus" on man-made climate change -- Prof. Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool."

The global warming theory has been based all along on the idea that the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans would absorb much of the greenhouse warming caused by a rise in man-made carbon dioxide, then they would let off that heat and warm the atmosphere and the land.

But as Prof. Latif pointed out, the Atlantic, and particularly the North Atlantic, has been cooling instead. And it looks set to continue a cooling phase for 10 to 20 more years. "How much?" he wondered before the assembled delegates. "The jury is still out."

Who claims this ? Good question : Prof. Latif, of the university of Leibniz, lead author of the IPCC last 2 global warming reports.

So you're, it seems stuck, if you assault this guys credibility, of course you're also assaulting the IPCC's credibility. If you don't, obviously you have to accept the conclusions "as you're not a climate scientist". So which is it ? Or are we going to go with the rotten apple theory, which of course would mean the scientific consensus mainly rests on a few rotten apples ...

But we all know what is motivating your global warming beliefs. And it's not science.

(and this is by no means the worst news for climate change theory, there is a revolution going on in thermodynamics relating how out-of-balance "systems" (like the earth and it's climate) behave, and it's very bad news : in the long term, anything that happens, including pumping huge amounts of co2 in the air, can only result in one of 2 things : a. nothing at all b. a return to equilibrium. If this theory gets proven, it is a theoretical proof, independant of any particular climate equation being right or wrong, that nothing inside the system can break the climate cycle that we're in, unless it fully obliterates earth)

Btw : I still find the IPCC a bunch of overpaid elititists with conflicts of intrest Obama himself would be ashamed of, but I love the situation this puts global warming nazis into.

"Mainly that's because, as an adult, I have an awareness of consequence (having suffered through enough such consequences over the years to have gained an appreciation of the power of my own stupidity.)"

Sir John, is that you?

Fuck, how did you know it was me?!

No, you haven't heard that.

Please post a link to where climate scientists (as opposed to scaremongering denialists) have said anything like "we may have started a runaway greenhouse effect"

We'll wait.

Let's see, 5 seconds of googling returned pages of results with the first one being this: Failure to tackle global warming could spell the end for humanity, warns UN report.

Don't you EVER tell my what I have and haven't heard. And don't try to claim that the scaremongering is coming from denialists! The science on the root cause of "climate change" is not in and it's the scientists with a vested political and monetary interest in AGW who are doing the scaremongering.

The climate may be changing. Humans may be contributing to it to some degree. How much, I don't know and you don't either. Also, no one has convinced me that moving the temperate zone north a bit will be a bad thing for humanity. So Russia and Canadaand Alaska become the world's bread-basket. Is that a bad thing? Yes, it's change. Yes, there MAY be some coastal changes (slowly over hundreds of years). Yes, there might be an Island or two that currently sits a few feet above sea-level that will have to be evacuated. Sad, but things change. Not a global catastrophe by any means. Simply the fact that your side has switched from calling it Global Warming to "Climate Change" is very telling.

The climate has always changed. In fact it has historically changed much faster than it is now in swings that mage even the worst projections seem insignificant. And it has done it over and over and over again. We will adapt.

In defence of this little country, I have to say that the double award winners in the story titled "Crushing Debt" are not from Belgium, they are from Kosovo :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1216735/Two-bank-robbers-killed-explosives-trying-blow-safe.html

The bank robbers in Belgium is mentioned in this article. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1216735/Two-bank-robbers-killed-explosives-trying-blow-safe.html BTW, it's not mentioned in this article, but the safe survived the blast.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-1240040/Former-England-rugby-star-Brian-Moore-reveals-I-abused-teacher-child-remain-haunted-adoption-rejection.html

Will not work

Yes. The biggest scam is soap. And antibacterial soap.

Washing your body with soap gets rid of important bacteria, which upsets the balance of your skin, and causes odor. The next time you take a shower/bath, try scrubbing with a clean, wet cloth. No soap. No shampoo or conditioner.

I haven't used soap, shampoo, or hair conditioner in 3 days, and I have no smell, my hair is healthier than ever, and my skin is no longer dry/scaly. I take showers to wash off the extra sweat/oil on my skin, but I only use a wet cloth. Read this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-477378/Six-weeks-wash-The-soapless-experiment.html - the woman went 6 weeks without washing, even if it's just a quick run under the shower.

"Whites" that until early last year had held the highest office in the country since its creation

So how's he doing? Other than the fantastic jobs creation work he's diligently doing I mean.