May I work for you, Sabri?

There: fixed it for you!

(If by universal, you mean everyone in the EPA and those who plan to profit from hedges on carbon credits: then I might agree.)

But I digress, you said pretty universal, i.e. partially universal, which is pretty much a contradiction.

Really? I thought my argumentum ad absurdum was rather pithy.

On most other subjects when people engage in an activity that contradicts their beliefs they are labeled hypocrites. But I understand from your explanation that environmentalism is a special brand of religion whose dalliances must be overlooked for the greater good, an outlook the mature understand; only a child would dare say the emperor has no clothes.

By this argument you would be justified in killing all the non-environmentalists who disagree with you and thereby save the planet.

Oh, too true

But data transmission energy is such a small consumption by comparison and since power plant energy production is lost if its not used: 400,000 people watching a youtube video might affect google's bottom-line (if they have one of those), but energy-wise the difference hardly registers at the utility level.

Now if you had 400,000 people charging their Prius to go to an environmentalist convention, that might be a little different.

They don't need a back-door.

Sure they'll encrypt your files with a key they don't know just like they said. But to comply with law enforcement all they would have to do is intercept your password when you enter it. And that's done easily : keyboard driver update patch for target users: collects and forwards the password to the feds.

That way they're still encrypted as advertised. And its possible that if you lose your phone or its confiscated that this would still be a plus. But I think this password intercept is how the feds would get access if they're monitoring you specifically.

I was referring to the difference between Mars and Earth where Mars lacks the gravitational pull to retain oxygen, Earth still does.

Despite the escape of atmospheric hydrogen, its constantly being produced by algae, and fresh-water algae tend to grow more when things are warmer. I don't think hydrogen loss is the king-pin for the billion-year epoch dooms-day you're describing.

OMG are you sure this isn't like data from Mars?

Hey everybody the oceans are evaporating! Quick, somebody start a national drive for cloud seeding: keep our water terrestrial!

Thereby reestablishing the establishment as the keepers of all truth once again.

The "greenest" fracking I'm aware of is propane-fracking. Uses propane instead of water as the fracking medium.

No water is used, some of the propane can be recovered, the remaining is suitable as a crude oil. As an added plus, unlike water, no radioactive radon is conducted back to the surface with this process.

Some Canadian company has applied for a patent to the process in the United States. IMO, this should be declined since Chevron invented the process back in the 70s for under-sea fracking. Not to mention if there ever was a case for making an invention public domain in the interest of the public!

The downsides are obvious: huge upfront costs (somewhere between $20 and $50 million per well maybe). And just a little more dangerous than working with water. Just a little.

In terms of the universe, you are probably correct.

However, I notice that pure combustion of methane gas yields carbon dioxide and water vapor (incomplete combustion yielding some nasty things like carbon monoxide). So all of this pulling of methane from underground and subsequent combustion: yields water vapor and a gas plants use to grow and thereby convert to CO2 to oxygen, which bound to hydrogen yields water.

So eventually, we will get the water back. And I'm not sure if the numbers work out (gallons of water polluted vs. amount of water vapor produced from millions of cubic feet of methane), but it seems there's a possibility, over time, we will actually have *more* water in circulation as a result.