Well - at least they found a buyer for the sign. That's something, right?

It's too short a season to grapple with so harsh a critique of this minor a transgression.

Sorry. I guess that was a bit like scratching a chalkboard, but I personally rather like this particular grammatical construct. It's efficient and it front loads the subjective point the author is trying to make, making comprehension easier. Compare: "The season is too short to grapple with a critique that's so harsh of a transgression that's this minor."

That is awesome to see.

I didn't even know.

What about Alien Legacy?

That is what is really the reason, in my opinion. They made enough off of their BJ work that they could afford to take high level risks without losing their house (literally) and they didn't need investors so they would own all of the rights to their products.

There are tons of people who are great programmers or have good ideas that don't bother because they need to work day-to-day to pay their bills and make sure their family has food on the table.

I saw this and the only thing I could think was, maybe we will see some Space Quest again in the style of Space Quest IV or II – funny, and not just playing with technology. Or King's Quest in the style of IV or V, and not the bastardization of VII.

Or hell, a remake of Alien Legacy.... That I would pay be bucks for.

I know that large game development firms simply cannot bother with these projects because the demand and return is too low, but if there is enough devoted fans, maybe, just maybe, my son will be able to play and enjoy the awesomeness of games that have a clear and exciting story that doesn't revolve around shooting people.

The fact is that there is abundant scientific evidence that human activities are causing global warming. A good summary is here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-we-know-were-causing-global-warming-in-single-graphic.html

Yes, that's obvious. The problem is that the same argument can always be used to discredit anything said by an expert in the field, and indeed it usually gets used that way. How about, instead of poisoning the well, responding to the actual content of the argument?

Unfortunately, you're simply failing to grasp the scope of the problem.

You're quite right that poverty is the biggest killer on the planet, but poverty is also the primary reason why people will die (and already are dying) due to global warming.

You see, when a system of oscillators accumulates energy, the amplitude of the oscillations tends to increase. This means that the extremes become more extreme, and you get both extreme droughts and extreme floods. Haven't you noticed that Texas and Arizona are burning while the Mississippi floods? That sort of thing starts happening much more frequently as the temperature increases.

So it's not just a matter of being slowly inundated by the encroaching sea, it's more like being alternately inundated with record flooding and parched with severe drought, repeatedly for many years, and then being slowly inundated by the encroaching sea.

You are fortunate that denial is, as they say, not just a river in Africa, because when the rivers of Africa start to experience alternating severe drought and flooding the way Australia already is, you're probably not going to want to be clinging desperately to any African rivers anyway.

So, what effect do you suppose all of this will have on food commodity prices? And what effect do you suppose that will have on the poor? It's already happening, food prices are way up and many people are dying because of it. And this is only the beginning, Mother Nature is just getting warmed up.

Let's call things what they are for a change, shall we?

When multiple independent well-established lines of evidence all point unequivocally to the same conclusion, I call that science.

When thousands of papers, the official statements of every major scientific organization in the world, and the professional opinion of ~97% of active researchers in the field support the same conclusion, you might just want to consider whether that conclusion might not be science, you think?

When the incoherent antiscientific blatherings of professional corporate shills contradict the vastly overwhelming body of scientific evidence, I call that propaganda.

Of course I do. Real Climate is spearheaded by Gavin Schmidt, one of NASA's leading climatologists and a genuine hero. By your logic we shouldn't listen to any expert on any issue, since their funding is dependent on their subject of study. OK, so we throw out all scientific knowledge, and we know nothing whatsoever about anything. That's not helpful.

To elaborate, what you're doing is citing a study without understanding anything about it, out of context, and claiming it relates to an issue upon which it has very little bearing. That experiment didn't disprove that the moon is made of green cheese either.

You read about that paper on some non-scientific propaganda site like WUWT or Denial Depot. People there, who have no more understanding of science than you do, claimed that the paper meant something it doesn't, and you believed them because it fit in with your preconceived notions.

Dig a little deeper next time.

Nope, sorry, nice try. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/05/an-incremental-step-blown-up/

So far no science has been mentioned in this discussion. Pretty disappointing, really. Slashdot used to be a place where smart people came to talk about issues.

Hmmm... that's not what the scare-mongers over at MIT say:

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html

I'm sorry, but if you can't be bothered to pay attention or even do minimal research, there's not much point in talking to you. Go read something other than denialist propaganda, like... oh, I don't know, some issues of Science or something.