The flower children of 1960-70-ies have all grown and are running the country. A feminist NY Times reporter agreed to show the Sony exec an article about her prior to publishing it — which is strictly against journalistic ethics. The article, of course, is quite adoring — the firm is praised for its "pro-women" movies (like "Frozen"). Journalistic integrity is secondary to the agenda — the Greater Good of promoting women justifies the means. Nobody will know, right?
Sony executive — Ms. Pascal — is quoted in the exchange as unable to properly spell "you are". Despite her correspondent — NYT's Dowd — gently correcting her several times, she kept writing "YOUR" (yes, in ALL CAPS) instead of "you're". How could such a moron become a major executive? Because it is good for a company's image to have a woman at the top, that's how... And, it being Hollywood, she had to be an Illiberal, of course.
And that's part of the bigger picture — our very President is who he is not (only) because of personal merits, but because of his race. Some mythical "haters" may have voted against him because of it, but he got more votes thanks to it, than he lost due to it.
Not only did it help him in 2008, it helped him all along before that. We don't know, how well he did in college, for example, but we know, he was elected President of Harvard Law Review — a feat, for which he thanked Black professors...
Among the first things he did in White House, was to appoint a fellow affirmative action "wise Latina" to Supreme Court. Again, not because she is the best qualified legal expert, but because she is a Latino.
No one with the functional organ will agree to a brain surgery done by a doctor, who got to do it because of his skin color or sex. Why, then, do we tolerate the governance of public and private institutions alike run by people, whose gender and race were taken into account, when they got the job?
They also cite a Nature editorial pointing out the same thing about extreme weather.
Extreme weather, huh? 10 years ago we were discussing right here, how continuing global warming will make hurricanes more frequent.
The usual suspects were writing "insightful" posts lamenting "deniers" and the sorry state of the uneducated populace preventing the sophisticated elite from saving the planet.
Today, 10 years since that discussion, we are living through a 30 year low hurricane-frequency — something, none of the "Global Warming" models predicted...
I've been to countries that don't have zoning laws and frankly I wasn't impressed with the results
What countries were those, and how do we know, those "unimpressive" results were due to, rather than in spite of (or even regardless of) lack of zoning?
I'm open to alternate solutions
Well, you must've missed my link to article about Houston, so here it is again...
All it takes is a municipal decision to make the road one-way (in the wrong direction)
That would be rather inconvenient for the residents themselves, would not it?
And local municipalities care more about what their residents think than what passing commuters think.
Why, yes, this is a great argument to justify selective enforcement of traffic laws too — tell the police to only ticket non-residents. Still feeling good?
Why is the site, that is all up-in-arms about net-neutrality — forcing private corporations to treat all traffic the same — tolerates the exact opposite sentiment, when it comes to traffic on public roads?
Unlike the network cables and electronics, the roads are actually ours — we all pay taxes for their repairs and upkeep — how can it be Ok for mayor and/or town-council of Western Bumfuck to limit traffic and give preference to local residents?
There are about 1.3 billion muslims in the world and the fraction causing problems in practice is minimal however you try and spin it.
I don't need to spin it — ISIS and Al Qaeda do it themselves. Few of the Muslims are actually fighting, yes, but they are funded by the much larger group of people.
You really don't know about the whole Catholics vs. Protestants thing?
I know about it quite well — enough to understand, that nothing in the doctrine of either flavor of Christianity compels its followers into doing the things IRA has done.
The Bible says an awful lot of things that aren't particularly nice either
None of those things are attributed to Him or His prophets. Koran, on contrast, dispenses with such subtlety and purports to be entirely the word of God.
Yes, Christianity too has been used to justify all sorts of atrocities, but one had to pervert the doctrine to make it usable to that end. Islam, unfortunately, does not need any such creative interpretations. It is quite explicit.
Most conflicts have some religious twist to them
Yes, religion is a tool used by societies during conflicts to rally supporters, team up with allies, comfort its own, and help its fighters do non-survivable things for the rest of us. But only Islam compels its followers into spreading itself.
In particular, Koran is incompatible with the First Amendment, which represents an interesting paradox for the US. On the one hand, Muslims swearing to respect the Constitution must denounce their religion. On the other, that very Amendment makes it impossible for us to force them into such denouncing...
Though a Soviet-raised atheist myself (where Communists could not afford to have any other teaching compete with their own), I must say, I prefer living in among religious folks — so long as they aren't empowered to convert me, of course.
You don't need as strong a lock on your house, nor do you have to fear as much, when your daughter walks home from the train.
Unfortunately, the alternative to an established monotheistic religion like Judaism, Christianity (most flavors), or even Islam, is not the theoretical atheism of the USSR or the sophisticated agnosticism of the educated elites. No, it is the superstitions and paganry — with vampires and werewolves, amulets and "lucky charms", "jinxing", and "bad karma" nonsense.
not actively start wars/fights to gain goods or force people to convert.
Yeah, 2:256. What came after that — and thus, by the rules with which the book is interpreted, takes precedence, is:
Qur'an (8:39) - “And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.”
Qur'an (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
Qur'an (9:5) "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them..."
Qur'an (9:11) - (Continued from above) "But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion"
I would've said "dream on", but your pro-Islam propaganda endangers the rest of us...
are we still holding all the crusades against christians?
Why is it, that you have to go back 600 years to find anything against Christians to counterweight contemporary behavior of Islamists?
I claimed that some Americans were joining the military for the same reasons that some Muslims become terrorists, to defend their religion and culture against its perceived enemies.
Well, in that case our participation in Korean war is evidence, we are full of Buddhist terrorists.
Coded references to New Testament Bible passages about Jesus Christ are inscribed on high-powered rifle sights provided to the United States military by a Michigan company
None of the references cited on that page actually promote fighting or armed struggle. They were put there to comfort the soldiers — all religions help followers do non-survivable (or hard-to-survive) things. But only Islam requires that.
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity
Ann Coulter was, quite obviously, trolling — she is very good at it. Just last week she wrote, that the Rolling Stones reporter, who falsely accused some college students of rape, received an award from Rape Hoax Monthly. Are you going to cite that as evidence, such a society exists? Her article simply reversed the tables — it expressed the sentiment written into "religion of piece".
The mechanisms are different but Christianity has it's own long history of aggressive attempts to spread the faith.
Secular leaders have used Christianity to justify conquests and subjugation, yes. But those aren't part of the scripture — neither Christian god, nor any of His prophets have ever called for anything of the kind.
everyone who doesn't join your faith is doomed to eternal suffering in this world and the next, and their children and their children as well
Although so is frequently said by some Christians, the idea is not part of the doctrine and not found in the Bible either (certainly not as attributed to god or any prophets). The current Pope is on record saying the exact opposite, actually.
strong impulse to teach them
Proselytizing is one thing (though Judaism frowns even on that).
But Islam — uniquely — is not satisfied with mere teaching. Koran compels the faithful to fight non-believers (or denigrate and tax them, as a minimum). Because — uniquely — Islam was established to help create a theocratic empire (Caliphate) and justify all means used to that end...
means his action wasn't at all motivated by his faith
It means neither that nor the opposite. The Wikipedia page about Mr. Knight — my source of the information — has no word "christian" on it (nor is "fanatic" present). To me, this is a sign, he was driven not by his Christianity — which does not call for armed opposition to anything — but by personal (and secular) disgust with abortions.
A deeply held (fanatical) religious feeling does help one do non-survivable things, yes. But not all religions compel people into doing them. Christianity does not. Islam does...
I am facing the same problem and plan to use a web-application (such as gallery). Not out of exhibitionism, but to allow the older relatives to help with tagging, sorting, commenting, and rating the images — while themselves enjoying the pictures of their descendants doing fun things.
I will block anonymous access to the collection by default, but will still be able to open it for the particular images I may choose to share.
Gallery in particular can "import" the existing photos on the hosting computer in bulk — you don't need to upload them via browser one at a time.
Just took a look at Imagemagick; they've definitely come a long way in RAW support.
ImageMagick (at least, the versions I've used so far) would spawn off ufraw (ufraw-batch rather) to turn raw-images into a bitmap that it can process itself.
Thus, the formats supported are determined by UFRaw...Which, I might add, has a decent GUI of its own, which can be used to correct the mistakes made when photographing (there is usually enough information in the raw file to allow moving up or down 2 shutter-stops, for example)...
Try not to be so lazy but in the spirit of the holiday season
No, funny guy, that's not, how it works. You put forth an argument, you put forth supporting citations. If you don't, the argument is baseless.
here's one for free
Yeah, is this the best you can come up with?
reinsurers might be underestimating their exposure to catastrophe losses due to climate change
Translation: "they do go through the motions of pretending to believe, but obviously aren't sincere". The rating agency, likewise, pretends to believe, it is important, but there is not a word in the article about any company's actual rating suffering because of it.
"Shield his corporation........" - you should do stand up, funny guy.
That's all? Ad hominem? I think, we are done here...
The Iraq war what? Do you have any data supporting the claim, that Americans have joined their military because of their Christian beliefs, which compelled them to kill Muslims? Put up or shut up...
The US army is steeped in Christianity, if the tables were turned do you think all of those soldiers would be content to stay on the sidelines while a Muslim superpower exerted its will over the West?
Once again, nothing in Christian scripture compels Christians to fight other faiths. On contrast, Koran does so compel its followers. That's the fundamental asymmetry..
You think the guy in the Cafe is preaching?
I said nothing about "preaching". I said, Muslim faithful are compelled — by their religion — to fight for spreading Islam world-wide and to establish a Califate.
There is nothing of the kind in the Bible.
He's fighting and promoting, same way the IRA did.
IRA's fight was purely secular — nothing in Catholicism insists nor mandates the sort of things they've done. Muslims, once again, must fight other religions — in order to remain good Muslims. Because Koran — which they believe to be the word of God verbatim — says so.
If you're a religious fanatic in the West (or Australia) and want to kill Muslims you join the army.
Citations...
I'm not trying to equate soldiers with terrorists, just pointing out why the comparison isn't valid.
The comparison is valid. Those 500K Muslims in Australia — their shops, kindergartens, restaurants, etc. — would've been juicy low-hanging fruits for any Christian terrorist — had there been one among the 14.5 millions...
That's probably because Christianity does not require believers to spread the faith — at the point of a weapon, if necessary. It has happened in the past, but not because anything in the scripture mandates it. Unlike in Koran... So a Christian fanatic, who wishes to live by the word of his god is not compelled to convert or kill anyone. A Muslim fanatic, unfortunately, is...
Perhaps that explains the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition.
There is nothing in attributed to the Christian god himself — nor any of his prophets — that required Crusades or the Inquisition.
On contrast, Koran — which purports to be the word of god verbatim — mandates that the faithful convert or kill the pagans and (tax the Christians and Jews). The prophet himself — whom Muslims world-wide adore — was an illiterate warlord, who used genocide centuries before it became cool.
Bible has plenty of warlords too, but none of them are His prophets. King David is described as a hero, but he killed too many people to found the Temple — the task was left to his son. Not the sort of quibbles, Muslims would consider...
The Crusades ended in the 14th century. Spanish Inquisition (a secular institution, BTW — ran by Spanish Crown) is also many centuries in the past. Since then the Western world has created the First Amendment, among other things. If you have nothing contemporary to contrast the ongoing craziness of the "religion of peace", you've lost your argument...
figures that businesses and governments use to make decisions
What is it with you, guys? So many posts trying to rebut mine, and none offering much in the way of citations. What figures? Which governments?
Most economists believe that climate action costs are negligible
That governments — and government-employed economists believe in something, that justifies expanding governmental control over citizens is not at all surprising. Conflict-of-interest much? And even they can't offer much more than belief...
starting with all the beachfront property
You mean, property like this? Or that's on the West coast — must be entirely different, yeah...
The fact that CO2 (or CH4 or H2O vapour and may others) is a greenhouse gas is well known since roughly 1850.
Straw-man. I said nothing about CO2 (or CH4 or H2O). My claim stands — none of the dire predictions (made since 1850, supposedly) has materialized. You had several opportunities to offer the requested counter-examples, but failed.
If you still live in the 17xx than that is your problem.
Ergo, you have no arguments and prefer to discuss gases and vapors instead... Kinda gives the audience an idea of your own contents...
The "predicted" consequences are materializing all over the world, as the worst currently in the west/south west of the USA
Well, if that were true, you would've had no problem fulfilling my request for citations... And yet, I don't see any... Khmm...
The prediction at that time are the same as right now: they cover the future, not 2014.
Ah, I see. Thanks for confirming no such predictions have actually been made. You know, one characteristic of a scientific theory is that it can be demonstrated wrong. For example, gravity can be rejected, if ever we see two masses not attracting each other. But global warming is conveniently infallible — if we only talk about the predictions so far in the future, nobody alive today will see them come to pass — or not.
If you are unable to understand simple physical stuff, I suggest to you to avoid buying land at coast lines and in relatively dry central continental areas. Good luck.
He-he... Well, get back to me, when Al Gore — the High Priest of the Global Warming — sells hisrecently-bought ocean-front villa and moves some place higher. Until then, you can stick your "suggestions", where they'll do the most good...
Slashdot Mirror
The flower children of 1960-70-ies have all grown and are running the country. A feminist NY Times reporter agreed to show the Sony exec an article about her prior to publishing it — which is strictly against journalistic ethics. The article, of course, is quite adoring — the firm is praised for its "pro-women" movies (like "Frozen"). Journalistic integrity is secondary to the agenda — the Greater Good of promoting women justifies the means. Nobody will know, right?
Sony executive — Ms. Pascal — is quoted in the exchange as unable to properly spell "you are". Despite her correspondent — NYT's Dowd — gently correcting her several times, she kept writing "YOUR" (yes, in ALL CAPS) instead of "you're". How could such a moron become a major executive? Because it is good for a company's image to have a woman at the top, that's how... And, it being Hollywood, she had to be an Illiberal, of course.
And that's part of the bigger picture — our very President is who he is not (only) because of personal merits, but because of his race. Some mythical "haters" may have voted against him because of it, but he got more votes thanks to it, than he lost due to it.
Not only did it help him in 2008, it helped him all along before that. We don't know, how well he did in college, for example, but we know, he was elected President of Harvard Law Review — a feat, for which he thanked Black professors...
Among the first things he did in White House, was to appoint a fellow affirmative action "wise Latina" to Supreme Court. Again, not because she is the best qualified legal expert, but because she is a Latino.
No one with the functional organ will agree to a brain surgery done by a doctor, who got to do it because of his skin color or sex. Why, then, do we tolerate the governance of public and private institutions alike run by people, whose gender and race were taken into account, when they got the job?
Extreme weather, huh? 10 years ago we were discussing right here, how continuing global warming will make hurricanes more frequent.
The usual suspects were writing "insightful" posts lamenting "deniers" and the sorry state of the uneducated populace preventing the sophisticated elite from saving the planet.
Today, 10 years since that discussion, we are living through a 30 year low hurricane-frequency — something, none of the "Global Warming" models predicted...
Sigh... Statists gonna state...
What countries were those, and how do we know, those "unimpressive" results were due to, rather than in spite of (or even regardless of) lack of zoning?
Well, you must've missed my link to article about Houston, so here it is again...
Zoning laws prevent you from doing what you want with your property... They are evil and, obviously, a magnet for graft and other corruption.
Houston, for example, is not any worse without them...
That would be rather inconvenient for the residents themselves, would not it?
Why, yes, this is a great argument to justify selective enforcement of traffic laws too — tell the police to only ticket non-residents. Still feeling good?
Why is the site, that is all up-in-arms about net-neutrality — forcing private corporations to treat all traffic the same — tolerates the exact opposite sentiment, when it comes to traffic on public roads?
Unlike the network cables and electronics, the roads are actually ours — we all pay taxes for their repairs and upkeep — how can it be Ok for mayor and/or town-council of Western Bumfuck to limit traffic and give preference to local residents?
I don't need to spin it — ISIS and Al Qaeda do it themselves. Few of the Muslims are actually fighting, yes, but they are funded by the much larger group of people.
I know about it quite well — enough to understand, that nothing in the doctrine of either flavor of Christianity compels its followers into doing the things IRA has done.
None of those things are attributed to Him or His prophets. Koran, on contrast, dispenses with such subtlety and purports to be entirely the word of God.
Yes, Christianity too has been used to justify all sorts of atrocities, but one had to pervert the doctrine to make it usable to that end. Islam, unfortunately, does not need any such creative interpretations. It is quite explicit.
Yes, religion is a tool used by societies during conflicts to rally supporters, team up with allies, comfort its own, and help its fighters do non-survivable things for the rest of us. But only Islam compels its followers into spreading itself.
In particular, Koran is incompatible with the First Amendment, which represents an interesting paradox for the US. On the one hand, Muslims swearing to respect the Constitution must denounce their religion. On the other, that very Amendment makes it impossible for us to force them into such denouncing...
Though a Soviet-raised atheist myself (where Communists could not afford to have any other teaching compete with their own), I must say, I prefer living in among religious folks — so long as they aren't empowered to convert me, of course.
You don't need as strong a lock on your house, nor do you have to fear as much, when your daughter walks home from the train.
Unfortunately, the alternative to an established monotheistic religion like Judaism, Christianity (most flavors), or even Islam, is not the theoretical atheism of the USSR or the sophisticated agnosticism of the educated elites. No, it is the superstitions and paganry — with vampires and werewolves, amulets and "lucky charms", "jinxing", and "bad karma" nonsense.
Yeah, 2:256. What came after that — and thus, by the rules with which the book is interpreted, takes precedence, is:
I would've said "dream on", but your pro-Islam propaganda endangers the rest of us...
Why is it, that you have to go back 600 years to find anything against Christians to counterweight contemporary behavior of Islamists?
Well, in that case our participation in Korean war is evidence, we are full of Buddhist terrorists.
None of the references cited on that page actually promote fighting or armed struggle. They were put there to comfort the soldiers — all religions help followers do non-survivable (or hard-to-survive) things. But only Islam requires that.
Ann Coulter was, quite obviously, trolling — she is very good at it. Just last week she wrote, that the Rolling Stones reporter, who falsely accused some college students of rape, received an award from Rape Hoax Monthly. Are you going to cite that as evidence, such a society exists? Her article simply reversed the tables — it expressed the sentiment written into "religion of piece".
Secular leaders have used Christianity to justify conquests and subjugation, yes. But those aren't part of the scripture — neither Christian god, nor any of His prophets have ever called for anything of the kind.
Although so is frequently said by some Christians, the idea is not part of the doctrine and not found in the Bible either (certainly not as attributed to god or any prophets). The current Pope is on record saying the exact opposite, actually.
Proselytizing is one thing (though Judaism frowns even on that).
But Islam — uniquely — is not satisfied with mere teaching. Koran compels the faithful to fight non-believers (or denigrate and tax them, as a minimum). Because — uniquely — Islam was established to help create a theocratic empire (Caliphate) and justify all means used to that end...
It means neither that nor the opposite. The Wikipedia page about Mr. Knight — my source of the information — has no word "christian" on it (nor is "fanatic" present). To me, this is a sign, he was driven not by his Christianity — which does not call for armed opposition to anything — but by personal (and secular) disgust with abortions.
A deeply held (fanatical) religious feeling does help one do non-survivable things, yes. But not all religions compel people into doing them. Christianity does not. Islam does...
I am facing the same problem and plan to use a web-application (such as gallery). Not out of exhibitionism, but to allow the older relatives to help with tagging, sorting, commenting, and rating the images — while themselves enjoying the pictures of their descendants doing fun things.
I will block anonymous access to the collection by default, but will still be able to open it for the particular images I may choose to share.
Gallery in particular can "import" the existing photos on the hosting computer in bulk — you don't need to upload them via browser one at a time.
ImageMagick (at least, the versions I've used so far) would spawn off ufraw (ufraw-batch rather) to turn raw-images into a bitmap that it can process itself.
Thus, the formats supported are determined by UFRaw...Which, I might add, has a decent GUI of its own, which can be used to correct the mistakes made when photographing (there is usually enough information in the raw file to allow moving up or down 2 shutter-stops, for example)...
I will deny, that it is their faith, that compels them to commit the crimes — and I'm not talking "sit-ins" or jaywalking.
Of course, there are plenty of Christian criminals. But nothing in the Christian scripture compels its followers into it.
Koran is rather different...
There were two incidents of violence against abortion-clinics in Australia, neither of them obviously motivated by Christian faith.
You don't have to be a Christian to consider fetus a human — it is a rather common opinion, even I personally do not share it.
No, funny guy, that's not, how it works. You put forth an argument, you put forth supporting citations. If you don't, the argument is baseless.
Yeah, is this the best you can come up with?
Translation: "they do go through the motions of pretending to believe, but obviously aren't sincere". The rating agency, likewise, pretends to believe, it is important, but there is not a word in the article about any company's actual rating suffering because of it.
That's all? Ad hominem? I think, we are done here...
The Iraq war what? Do you have any data supporting the claim, that Americans have joined their military because of their Christian beliefs, which compelled them to kill Muslims? Put up or shut up...
Once again, nothing in Christian scripture compels Christians to fight other faiths. On contrast, Koran does so compel its followers. That's the fundamental asymmetry..
I said nothing about "preaching". I said, Muslim faithful are compelled — by their religion — to fight for spreading Islam world-wide and to establish a Califate.
There is nothing of the kind in the Bible.
IRA's fight was purely secular — nothing in Catholicism insists nor mandates the sort of things they've done. Muslims, once again, must fight other religions — in order to remain good Muslims. Because Koran — which they believe to be the word of God verbatim — says so.
Citations...
The comparison is valid. Those 500K Muslims in Australia — their shops, kindergartens, restaurants, etc. — would've been juicy low-hanging fruits for any Christian terrorist — had there been one among the 14.5 millions...
That's probably because Christianity does not require believers to spread the faith — at the point of a weapon, if necessary. It has happened in the past, but not because anything in the scripture mandates it. Unlike in Koran... So a Christian fanatic, who wishes to live by the word of his god is not compelled to convert or kill anyone. A Muslim fanatic, unfortunately, is...
There is nothing in attributed to the Christian god himself — nor any of his prophets — that required Crusades or the Inquisition.
On contrast, Koran — which purports to be the word of god verbatim — mandates that the faithful convert or kill the pagans and (tax the Christians and Jews). The prophet himself — whom Muslims world-wide adore — was an illiterate warlord, who used genocide centuries before it became cool.
Bible has plenty of warlords too, but none of them are His prophets. King David is described as a hero, but he killed too many people to found the Temple — the task was left to his son. Not the sort of quibbles, Muslims would consider...
The Crusades ended in the 14th century. Spanish Inquisition (a secular institution, BTW — ran by Spanish Crown) is also many centuries in the past. Since then the Western world has created the First Amendment, among other things. If you have nothing contemporary to contrast the ongoing craziness of the "religion of peace", you've lost your argument...
There are 14.5 million Christians in Australia (61% of the population). None of them is committing a crime in the name of his religion.
Yes, they do — they pay taxes and salaries.
Please, spare me the "war for oil" meme. It is utter nonsense.
What is it with you, guys? So many posts trying to rebut mine, and none offering much in the way of citations. What figures? Which governments?
That governments — and government-employed economists believe in something, that justifies expanding governmental control over citizens is not at all surprising. Conflict-of-interest much? And even they can't offer much more than belief...
You mean, property like this? Or that's on the West coast — must be entirely different, yeah...
Straw-man. I said nothing about CO2 (or CH4 or H2O). My claim stands — none of the dire predictions (made since 1850, supposedly) has materialized. You had several opportunities to offer the requested counter-examples, but failed.
Ergo, you have no arguments and prefer to discuss gases and vapors instead... Kinda gives the audience an idea of your own contents...
Citations, please.
To help shield his corporation from boycotts and hostile legislation.
The "predicted" consequences are materializing all over the world, as the worst currently in the west/south west of the USA
Well, if that were true, you would've had no problem fulfilling my request for citations... And yet, I don't see any... Khmm...
Ah, I see. Thanks for confirming no such predictions have actually been made. You know, one characteristic of a scientific theory is that it can be demonstrated wrong. For example, gravity can be rejected, if ever we see two masses not attracting each other. But global warming is conveniently infallible — if we only talk about the predictions so far in the future, nobody alive today will see them come to pass — or not.
He-he... Well, get back to me, when Al Gore — the High Priest of the Global Warming — sells his recently-bought ocean-front villa and moves some place higher. Until then, you can stick your "suggestions", where they'll do the most good...