Strictly speaking, no.

Everything is relative.

Neither.

Neither.

Everything is relative.

It would be pretty easy mechanically. But impossible politically. Which is probably a good thing.

Multiple post...sorry.

Multiple post...sorry.

I have had the same problem. The key is when you click POST COMMENT don't click it again even if you think it will help. It won't. Let the connection time out.

   Yes there is.  A massive build up of nuclear arsenals around the world follwed by an all out war.   The loss of  human life due to the massive killing power of these weapons would obviously curtail further man made sources of green houses gases and the subsequent nuclear winter would offset any lingering global warming.  Problem solved.

There is a huge difference between actually crowdfunding something and attempting to crowdfund something. I doubt that crowd funding a space elevator is going to work. Companies that have attempted to raise investment for such projects have so far failed due to the extremely high risk of something so massive and completely untested. Odds are the first few attempts will be massive wastes of resources.

Sounds like you are making an excuse for flyby posts containing links to false and/or misleading data compiled by biased sources who aren't qualified to examine the evidence in the first place.

Completely contradicts your previous post about surviving on a mountain.

But then there is:

So you were a closet global warming denier and now you're out of the closet?

For the record, the title of the "completely different topic" was 'Global warming denial is irrational'.

I don't have to be perfectly versed in a particular area of science, but it is not rocket science to figure out what is FRAUD based on money.  One of the oldest scams in the book and done by people of ALL walks of life and the people who fall for the snake oil are not as smart as they THINK they are.  Sounds to me as if you are follwing a religion. Why don't you apply the same level of skepticism to the claims of sciencs as you do religion, it might be enlightening.  

Bull shit! you also had this one.

Which completely contradicts your statement here.

So to you, global warming is only a serious threat when it help promote your Marxist(aka give me free stuff) agenda. When the question is should a space structures be built to prevent global warming, suddenly it is not a big threat.

Also, your Robin Hood wealth redistribution plan if it actually worked would really increase carbon in the atmosphere. When poor people become middle class, they consume a lot more and drive a lot more.

You put so much god damn faith in government to provide your security and argue we should be happy to pay high taxes for their police and fire services. So, why the hell can't government fix this problem?

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand human based climate change is a simple fact.

You are describing yourself rather well. You've bought into the scam of denying reality in order to make more money in the short term for big industry at the expense of long term sustainability. I suspect you'd throw away all the rules and let industry pump pollutants unfiltered into the atmosphere en mass and drop safety regulations just so they could make more cash.

Bullshit yourself.

Repeating a lie ad absurdum does not change the fact it is a lie. It just proves you're dumb.

It's funny how I could point to more than a thousand posts where you call me a marxist in one form or another and it proves nothing more than your absolute stupidity. For the thousandth time, at least, I've never even read Marx.
And 'global warming', as you put it, is not a serious threat. But it does exist, and ignoring it is just plain idiotic.

You have yet to forward a practical plan to do that which I have not shot down with fact. Come back when that changes.

With cars switching over to electric, I don't see the problem.
If the middle class grows and consumes more, then the upper class benefits as well. Everyone does better. It's funny that you are unable to understand basic logic and basic math.

Stop using strawmen already. I've told you a thousand times I don't have faith in government. It has been scientifically proven to function better than no government, and that's reason enough to prefer having a government.

Heh, if someone doesn't even have the intellectual patience/honesty to acknowledge my posts, then they're probably not going to look it up themselves.

Oh well.

Yep, time is valuable.

No, you made the assertion.

Climate change is as much a scientific fact as gravity and evolution. You claim all the proof is a lie. Burden is on you.

Lol.

Irrelevant question. Stay on topic.

 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html  Scientists have been fudging data warmer since 1950’s.  

http://www.sott.net/article/276813-Peer-reviewed-paper-says-its-OK-to-manipulate-data-exaggerate-climate-claims  Paper telling Global warming scientists to manipulate data.

 http://www.naturalnews.com/045808_global_warming_fraud_data_manipulation_NOAA.html#%23ixzz36EOG14pU   NOAA caught in a lie about warmest year.  They were forced to change their website.  

There is WAY more where these came from.  It is not JUST climate sciences that are guilty of this, but it is on a rather large scale in other science fields.  Here is just a tiny few examples.  

http://time.com/81388/is-the-peer-review-process-for-scientific-papers-broken/ Peer Review is broken.

 http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7afd44f9a991472b8395d5d73e8d3326/japan-scientist-quits-cell-research-discredited Japanese Scientist discredited in Stem Cell Research by using cooked up results.  She at least had the decency to resign.  

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2014/11/21/former-vanderbilt-scientist-faked-research/19355363/ Vanderbilt committed fraud in biomedical research on a massive scale.  

I don't care what other people decide, but I am not convinced.  If this were just a smattering of a few, I might blow it off, but it isn't.  I don't JUST distrust government, in distrust ALL...yes ALL institutions.  You can call it conspiracy, I don't give two shits.  When people say that the "CONSENSUS" is...well..there is a fallacy called appeal to consensus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum 

There is also what is known as  appeal to authority.  I see plenty of that by the bandwagon of people who swear GW is true or man made:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

I have tried to make the last two links work.  I give up.  Just copy and past them into a browser.  FUCK IT! 

Uh huh, see you are a government agent being bribed MILLIONS (of pennies) to collect meteorological data. No doubt you BELIEVE that you aren't fudging the numbers, but in reality, you have been BRAINWASHED to bump the numbers up and you don't remember it. Remember all those SHOTS they gave you and told you were VACCINES? They were actually nano-robots that are in your neural pathways and controlling what you remember and don't remember. Now excuse me, I have to go polish my hat. (the aliens said if it wasn't shiny enough they would skip the lube next time ) 

lol he thinks news articles and opinion columns can take the place of peer reviewed scientific journals

Alright, I fixed the two bottom wikipedia links for you.

Anyways, I've already repeatedly explained the futility of trying to discredit the entire field by digging up potential scams, and I've also repeatedly explained the pointlessness of posting web links, especially from unreliable sources, and especially when you've neither analyzed the sources in question (which you clearly haven't) nor understand the topic being discussed (which you clearly don't). And, your response is to.....post more links to various sources, many unreliable, about scams on a topic you don't understand? Not to mention, you already posted the first two links on the previous page, and yes, I've already looked at both of them. You also seem to have just posted the same Time article twice, and yes, I've already skimmed over it, and no, that writer would not support your position, no matter how much you want her to. The same with the speakers in that youtube video. Overall, I dare say I've already looked at most of your links in far greater detail than you have. I even already posted an extended response to that second link, which you STILL have not acknowledged, and, here, you're posting it AGAIN even though I already responded to it.

Well, at least, you're sort of responding to me now, even if you still ignored most (i.e. pretty much all) of what I said. So, I'll continue responding too. But, I doubt I'm going to get through to you at this point, so for motivation, I'll think of all the other people, especially lurkers, who might be reading this thread. Well, that and I don't have work tomorrow, lol. 

And an article about NOAA, huh? What do you know about NOAA? We use tools and products from NOAA every day to develop our forecasts. I even had NOAA on my favorites list on my web browser. Some of my co-workers will probably work for NOAA after the Navy. You didn't even know what those letters stood for until you found that stupid article after googling the topic. So, one thing I would like is for you to stop making blanket references to "scientists," "climate people," "NOAA," etc. essentially everyone that works in the community, while treating them like they're well organized illuminati cults operating in shadow worlds or something. Are you having a hard time conceiving of people who work in science related professions as being real individual humans? Perhaps not, but the way you refer to them is quite strange. Either way, I can confirm that they are real people. You know how? Because you're talking to one right now.  

Sigh...when did anyone here say that peer review was perfect? Didn't we already cover both of these subjects? You need to break away from this all or nothing mindset.

At least those two, at a glance, appear like legitimate scams being exposed. But, what does it prove? You think you're the only person that knows how to look up stuff on the Internet? You can't even figure out how to post links on the rich text editor. If I wanted to, I could post 50 different links to Creationist websites exposing scams in evoution right now. Similarly, I could also post 50 different links arguing in support of global warming. Or, I could post 50 links about anti-global warming people being dishonest. I'm not going to do any of that. You know why? Well, for one, it's pointless because I don't think you're going to read them. However, the main reason is because it's intellectually lazy and disengenuous for me to just post anything that supports my position which I haven't already read and understood. But, you still don't get it, do you? What can I write to make you understand this?

I already addressed this as well. Too bad you didn't read it. I'll go over it again. Please pay attention.

I beg to differ. Leaving my previous comment about individual people aside for the moment, I don't think you distrust ALL institutions. In fact, I can point out a couple of institutions that you trust right now. Ready?

Here is one institution that you trust:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

Here is another one:

http://www.sott.net/

And another:

http://www.naturalnews.com/

You see what I'm getting at? If not, you are free to ask me questions and begin having an open-minded discussion whenever you feel like. Hopefully, other readers will understand. 

Good. I agree. I don't think you should become a proponent of global warming because everyone else is. You should think for yourself and determine what is supported by evidence and reason. I'm sure you remember this since I already.....oh wait, you don't because you ignored me and never read what I wrote. 

Hmm, in your defense, I have referred to the scientific consensus a couple of times now. However, I never meant to imply that you should just believe whatever the majority believes. If it seems that way, I apologize. Rather, note that this is experiential and based on my appreciation of the scientific method as well as the measured understanding that the scientific process will win out, even if some individual scientists are fallible human beings. Yet, with that statement, I may already be overly tentative in your favor. I suppose that we have a drastically different perception of the average scientist, to the extent that if say "most scientists" to you, I might as well say "most Catholic priests."   

Hmm, for this example, what about the financial cost and time required by the market to switch over to a different type of vehicle? For example, even if electric cars are "better," there are already gas stations everywhere, but few places to conveniently power your electric car on a long drive. There are other factors. Like, the assembly lines for gasoline cars have been around a very long time. So, with the same resource costs, it would still cost a company more to build an electric car since they wouldn't be as efficient. And, overall, it just takes time for people to start using something new. I think I read somewhere that consumers will often buy the same brand over and over even when there is a better product.

I have seen a few Teslas around in the last couple of years. Of course, they are still waayy more expensive than, say, a Toyota. 

Blatant lie.

Blatant lie.

Failed conclusion based on failed premise equals absolute failure.

Irrelevant.

Ridiculous. The alarmist leftist wants the economy to switch over from fossil fuels to renewable resources. Which frankly isn't a bad idea, if a little naive. 

I will happily pry your cold dead body out of your jeep. The act will ensure that I know I never have to listen to your lies and misrepresentations again.

On your part.

We do, moron. lmfao.

The same people who pay for gas now. Surprise!

Not if evironmental pollution is handled. But of course you're fighting against that. You want to increase environmental pollution.

Ridiculous. We have not run out of natural resources. 

Everywhere.

Everywhere.

Everywhere.

Why should we? You can't even manage what you have without wasting most of it. You idiots built a agricultural megacomplex in a fucking desert. Literally the dumbest thing you can do. Learn how to manage your resources better and you'll find they last a lot longer.

Repeating lies doesn't make them true. It just makes you an idiot.

I don't have a condition. But you do. You could get treated for it here, in this so-called socialist paradise.