Sounds like you're jealous of those of us competent enough to take care of ourselves (contrasted to nanny-state liberals) withOUT the need to meddle in other people's lives like you do.

Yeah. We can see why you'd be jealous of us.

The country just elected Obama. It's not like "well there's not enough of you to get someone elected president into office!" is a shot at our political philosophy. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't accept that socialism is a more legitimate political philosophy than your own just because more socialist welfare idiots voted in the last election than those of your position.

and for the record, Marx was an idiot academic without a clue.

Precisely.

>>Have you ever tried to stand in a str8 line with 10 friends and say 2 sentences to the first one witch has to quietly tell it to the second one and so on.. Eaven with only 1 or 2 sentances you usually get a result of approxomately 1 or 2 good words while the entire content will have shifted to a compleatly other cind of sentence.. <<

Oral history was more important then. Don't project your own apathy and intellectual shortcomings on peoples who developed, valued, and used their memories much more than you.

>>If this is true than why do people not have the commen sence to not beleave a book that is insainly out dated and actually made in a time where whomen where of no more importance than your friendly neighbourhood goat..<<

Are you referring to the Bible? Parts were written long before the more current collection of works we know as the Bible today were put together and decided upon. They didn't write the different books at Nicea, they decided which ones were part of their faith and which were counterfeit. Also, the Bible gave more "value," to use your word, to women than had the societies of that area of the globe at the time.

>>Not so long ago people would actually kill you if you told em the world was round..<<

There was a time that the Church would, but unless you're prepared to engage the political/economic/sociological conditions at the time, this is probably pointless to discuss.

>>or if you told em that we would one day get from France to New york in under 12 hours. <<

Citation? I've never heard of such a case. Admittedly fascinating!

>> Fact is that things change so rapidly becaulse alot of people are trying to beter understand life its self instead of beleaving in a god. <<

Many scientists, including leading physicists, not only believe in God, but have their faith strengthened by their work. What are your PhDs in that your knowledge of science has discouraged faith in you? When have you seen belief in God interfere with scientific research? (presumably in modern times)

>>change is needed to strive forward<<

Is that like the Obama message, that we must change even what's working better than anything else the world has ever seen? Seems a little simple.

It's not your election system that has you electing morons.

Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews of Climate Change is a very respected peer-reviewed journal. It appears that this study must have appeared in Volume 1 Issue 1 (January/February 2010), considering that it's the only one published. I wonder why they chose to study their legitimate research in a brand new publication, not one of the many respected scientific peer-reviewed journals? I mean, from the "scientists" who authored its perspective, this is a very poor resume addition compared to publishing their study in a real journal. I wonder why they didn't.

[Edit: "Interdisciplinary" meaning half of it is relatively unscientific analysis of things like Kyoto and pan-asia agreements. It's a publication with a goal, not a serious scientific journal.]

Are all NZHerald stories written this poorly? It's certainly not delivered in a news format, starting with the clear statements (without citation) of opinion followed by a huge lack of data to support it.

I took a look at the publication. Another article:
"The attribution of present-day
climate change, interpretation of changes prior to the industrial epoch, and forecast
of future decadal climate change necessitate quantitative understanding of how,
when, where, and why natural variability, including by the Sun, may exceed,
obscure or mitigate anthropogenic changes"

"When climate models can
reproduce the multiple, complex responses embodied
in the empirical evidence, confidence will increase in
their ability to simulate climate changes in response
to other radiative forcings, including by greenhouse
gases."

So thank you for the wanna-be "news" story about a study published in the first issue of a publication on climate change. I'm sure the author's disappointment that they couldn't get published anywhere else is made up for by how much you enjoyed their work. I didn't see whatever article the "news" story you linked mentioned in the journal. Maybe it's the "The idea of anthropogenic global climate change in the 20th century " one? Hard to be sure, since the author of the "news" piece doesn't name the work or its principle author (at least, not accurately). But that's not a scientific experiment, it's a "review," some "expert" explaining his position and citing loads of other "experts" who said pretty much the same thing. (This way, nobody has to do a lot of research of their own, and they're never alone in their findings! An ego win/win!)

God put fossils in the earth to deceive us.

I don't spend time with trash. You seem to have missed the point. It's nobody's fault but yours if you do.

I dunno. Bastard is very anti-social.

I think he just called God a bad game designer.

If I was on that flight I'd have done what I could to make him dead before the plane ever landed. Back in the good old days people who tried to take innocent lives had their ability to take innocent lives revoked, along with their life.