Moose

No it won't, it'll crash and burn, bad analogy. Take a look at this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDWUhn_CJKU None of these cars are randomly crashing and burning the moment they get out of the car. A car crash will only happen if it collides with an external object, and by definition the universe has nothing external to interact with.

If you jump from a moving vehicle, nobody needs to be inside steering it for you to know it's going to carry on moving in the direcction it was going. Nobody in control doesn't mean a complex system (a moving car) will behave in a chaotic fashion. And so it is the same with atheism, the lack of a god, doesn't imply a chaotic (totally random) universe.

All animals need details to stop going mad. Don't make the mistake of trivialising them, they're essential.

Everyone should just give up their false beliefs and bow down to the giant flying spaghetti monster.

I guess they don't want to end up like America, where you have this annoying business of having more than one party to vote for. Gets in the way of running the country when you have to constantly campaign for re-election. In China they have this fantastic near utopian system where a perfect party that only has the nations interest in mind, filled with the best and brightest have full control and so the lucky citizens of China don't have to burden themselves with listening to silly political debates constantly - all their thinking can be done for them by experts carefully chosen by the government. This leaves them to concentrate on more important things like building super fast rail networks. It sounds like paradise.

I suppose the thing about water vapour is we're not burning vast amounts of natural hydrogen, thereby adding to the total water vapour present in the atmosphere. Here's a more interesting questions, does the natural warming of the sun, thereby melting ice, causing more water vapour, causing positive feedback (more water vapour -> more greenhouse gas -> higher temperatures -> more ice melts) have more of an impact than gradually rising atmospheric CO_2 levels? Don't bother trying to answer that one, nobody knows. The one thing I'm sure of is it's been getting hotter for the last 25 years, and till we have a 2nd planet I find that unsettling.

CO_2 may only absorb on a few bands, but then natural light is a mix over all frequencies, so surely this is a non issue. A theoritical bubble of CO_2 immersed in a vaccum, exposed to natural light will absorb some of this light and increase in temperature, will it not?

Well clearly there's more to that model or you wouldn't get hot lying about in the sun.

It's got steadily warmer where I live over the last 25 years. I'd feel better if more people posted "it's been getting colder where I live over the last 25 years. Recently it's started snowing and it never used to before", but this never seems to happen. I think we can all agree that global warming or not, the late snow season that hit Switzerland was most excellent. Nothing like having peoples skiing holidays ruined, rich bastards

What they basically do is hand their mortgage down to their children to finish paying off over two life times.

Things are worse in Tokyo from what I hear. They pretty much invented the term "100 year mortgage".

So what you're saying is that wit is inversely proportional to the amount of teeth someone has? Interesting.

Or perhaps one side will accept compensation. Everyone has their price.

Depends which side.

My opinion is nobody should be allowed to live in that whole region. Nobody's happy then, which indicates a good compromise has been met.

Maybe the answer is in recycling.

Let's assume climate change doesn't exist - we're still going to have to invest in alternative power. Oil's finite.

I hear what Aram's saying but it wasn't the same world back then. They saw it all so differently.

Not at all embarrassed that you watched all 19?

No because they claim ownership of it anyway.

Good to see our red bricks haven't lost their high standards.

The research was conducted by 4 women out at a nightclub, so I guess scientists do go out more.

Although I don't agree with EAs strategy, when people take up employment they sign a contract. Surely it's down to them to negotiate terms stating 'You can't fire me if the company is making profit'. Meh... is that what we really want? Why can't people simply boycott a company known to be a bad employer. Contray to popular belief, EA doesn't own a monopoly on the computer game industry. Last I read it was around a fifth.

Until they follow suit. Course that'll never happen. Or will it.