Self promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, May 9th, 2007 2:02pm PDT - promote requested by original submitter Sylvester_Ink.

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Monday, May 14th, 2007 6:28pm PDT - promote requested by lurgee.

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Saturday, January 27th, 2007 12:41am PST - promote requested by ravioli.

http://www.ventedspleen.com/blog/2007/10/22/24-hour-comic-everything-you-never-wanted-to-know-about-crohns-disease/

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, January 31st, 2007 10:03pm PST - promote requested by blahpook.

The possibility of robot abuse is actually being taken quite seriously. Psychologists are studying it. Governments are drafting laws about it.

http://www.idemployee.id.tue.nl/j.hu/publications/2008-IS-ExploringTheAbuseOfRobots/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070316-robot-ethics.html

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, October 25th, 2007 8:56pm PDT - promote requested by newtboy.

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Tuesday, July 31st, 2007 1:35am PDT - promote requested by JiggaJonson.

Self promoting this video back to the front page; last published Tuesday, December 25th, 2007 4:24am PST - promote requested by original submitter Norsuelefantti.

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Saturday, April 21st, 2007 11:46pm PDT - promote requested by kulpims.

Damn it, crazy grandpa! Every now and then you totally have a moment of clarity and say a bunch of stuff I can get behind, but tomorrow I suspect you'll be right back to supporting insanity (like Palin).

Wait, so these are not just illegal acts, but actual specifically delineated war crimes, since they continued after 2007? Can we turn over Bush and Cheney to the Hague this year?

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Saturday, May 19th, 2007 10:02pm PDT - promote requested by newtboy.

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, December 19th, 2007 10:00pm PST - promote requested by enoch.

I'm guess from you're tone your American, or at least only figure Americans are going to be reading? You note that 'we' can't get to the moon, while Chinese rovers navigate it's surface. You note with alarm what coastal Florida will face from sea level rise, and not an entire nation like Kiribati. When we look at a global problem we can't ignore technology just because it's Chinese, or focus so hard on Florida's coast we ignore an entire nation in peril.

Sea levels aren't going to be fine in 2099 and then rise a foot on the eve of 2100. They will continue to rise about 3mm annually, as they have already for the last 100 years.(on a more granular level slightly less than 3mm nearer 1900 and slightly more nearer 2100 but the point stands). Coastal land owners aren't merely going to see this coming. They've watched it happening for nearly 100 years already and managed to cope thus far. Cope is of course a bad word for building housing near the coast and at less than a foot above sea level. It's like how occupants at the base of active volcanoes 'cope' with the occasional eruption. All that is to say, the problem for homes built in such locations has always been a matter of when not if disaster will strike. The entire island nation of Kiribati is barely above sea level. It is one tsunami away from annihilation. Climate change though is, let me be brutally honest, a small part of the problem. A tsunami in 1914 would've annihilated Kiribati, as a tsunami today in 2014 would, as a tsunami in 2114 would. And we are talking annihilate in a way the 2004 tsunami never touched. I mean an island that's all uninhabited, cleared to the ground and brand new, albeit a bit smaller for the wear. That scenario is going to happen sooner or later, even if the planet were cooling for the next 100 years so let's be cautious about preaching it's salvation through prevention of climate change.

Your points on food production are, sorry, wrong. You are correct enough that local food growth is a big part of the problem. You are dead wrong that most, or even any appreciable amount is to blame on climate change now or in the future. All the African nations starving for want of local food production lack it for the same reason, violence and instability. From this point forward referenced as 'men with guns'. The people in Africa have, or at least had, the means to grow their own food. Despite your insistence that men with guns couldn't stop them from eating then, they still did and continue to. A farmer has to control his land for a whole year to plant, raise and harvest his crop or his livestock. Trouble is men with guns come by at harvest time and take everything. In places like the DRC or Somalia they rape the farmer's wife and daughters too. This has been going on for decades and decades, and it obviously doesn't take many years for the farmer to decide it's time to move their family, if they are lucky enough to still be alive. That is the population make up of all the refugee camps of starving people wanting for food. It's not a climate change problem, it's a people are horrible to each other problem. A different climate, better or worse growing conditions, is a tiny and hardly worth noting dent in the real problem.
CO@ emission restrictions do not equate to global economic downturn, they could just as easily mean global economic upturn as new tech is adopted and implemented.
I stated meaningful CO2 emission changes. That means changes that will sway us to less than 1 foot of sea level change by 2100 and corresponding temperatures. Those are massive and rapid reductions, and I'm sorry but that can not be an economic boon too. I'm completely confident that electric cars and alternative or fusion power will have almost entirely supplanted fossil fuel usage before 2100, and because they are good business. Pushing today though for massive emission reductions can only be accomplish be reducing global consumption. People don't like that, and they jump all over any excuse to go to war if it means lifting those reductions. That's just the terrible nature of our species.

As for glaciers, I did read the article. You'll notice it observed that increasing the spatial resolution of models changed the picture entirely? The IPCC noted this and updated their findings accordingly as well(page 242). The best guess by 2100 is better than 50% of the glaciers through the entire range remaining. The uncertainty range even includes a potential, though less likely GAIN of mass:
. Results for the Himalaya range between 2% gain and 29% loss to 2035; to 2100, the range of losses is 15 to 78% under RCP4.5. The modelmean loss to 2100 is 45% under RCP4.5 and 68% under RCP8.5 (medium confidence). It is virtually certain that these projections are more reliable than in earlier erroneous assessment (Cruz et al., 2007) of complete disappearance by 2035.

If you still want to insist Nepal will be without glaciers in 2100 please provide a source of your own or stop insisting on contradicting the science to make things scarier.

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, March 1st, 2007 9:27pm PST - promote requested by enoch.