That's what I do. I have an electric tea kettle and drink tea all day. That means I have to go fill the tea kettle and go on bathroom breaks. I try to walk down a few flights of stairs and walk back up every 2-3 hours as well. (I haven't fully incorporated that into my routine yet.)

Yes. It will make their life easier. A short term gain - at what price? Consolidating even more power in Imperial Washington and reducing the only real check and balance to the federal leviathan - the states. I'm not saying that states automatically do things better than the Federal Govt - they obviously don't. But continual chipping away at the power of states and placing it in Washington is something to be concerned about. And what are we doing it for - to make it easier for Google to lay fiber and gain more customers.

So Big Brother regulation breeds competition? I'm not saying the republicans (especially those in power) are for free markets but what makes you possibly think that FCC regulation would lead to more competition? The problem is in state regulation - and you think Federal legislation will magically solve the problem? Or do you think - perhaps it will lead to more centralized control, a more centralized bureaucracy that creates another "too big to fail" monstrosity.

Trading dozens of poorly run state systems with one huge system is not going to help.

Imperialism is not the same thing as playing the "great game".

Where exactly has been the imperialistic war? What minerals and resources did the imperialist forces take from muslim lands?

Or are you :
1) just a brain-dead fuck who says things he doesn't understand/ or
2) simply an apologist for islamofascists? (as opposed to muslims).

They've been using it over a year with no issue. I was there over Christmas and re-wrapped the electrical tape. (They had made a bubble by adding more layers to it as the ends kept lifting up. I took it down to the wire and re-wrapped it. The reason I didn't use wire nuts was that it would look butt ugly and I was just doing a temporary fix so that we could have coffee.

As often happens though temporary becomes permanent. The wire can be replaced at the terminals and if they still have it next time I go there I should do that. Nonetheless at the time I was there they hadn't brew coffee for two days as they couldn't grind their beans and were trying to decide which grinder to buy - and I wanted my coffee and the corner bodega was closed.

If your coffee grinder doesn't work because the electric cord was left on the stove and burned would you know how to fix it? A friend of mine was going to through his out. I cut out the burnt wire; stripped the rubber; spliced the wire together; used some electrical tape and VOILA. It works. No need to throw it out. No need to go to the corner bodega for coffee or buying ground coffee. 5 minutes and you're done.

This wasn't difficult. My willingness and ability to fix it doesn't mean as much as their inability to fix it.

We're not talking about 30F now are we. The worst greatest temperature increase I've seen predicted was 3-5 degrees celsius. Not 30 degrees F. (And most are talking about 1.5-2.5 degress C) The consequences of said temperature increase will be rising coastlines not that the planet will be too high to sustain mammalian and other life. By the way -- mammals will not be able to survive throughout the planet as they did 55 million years ago if the avg temperature was 30 degrees F higher.

Where did you get 30 F? You just baselessly scared yourself silly.

Well. In economic terms - what is the worst case scenario to the global economy? If we discuss things along those lines - fine. Then the question is less "chicken-little" then "how do we prepare for the following world events.

Ultimately I think pollutants, habitat encroachment and over-population are a far greater concern than rising C02 levels.

Now that is the type of argument I like.Yes. Things may get very bumpy for a whole slew of reason (over-population); war based on greed or climate change; destruction of habitats, disease, etc...

We have built huge cities in flood plains (New Orleans) and entire nations (Bangladesh). There will be huge problems as see levels rise. Some places will endure problems (Florida) and some island nations will cease to be. Wars and other problems may arrive from this.

I am not saying to be an ostrich and bury ones head in the sand or to go around and *just be happy* (or if you like a more literary reference - that we should all take a Panglossian perspective on what-will-be).

But being a chicken-little (I'm not referring to you) saying that the sky is falling; and that rising C02 levels are an existential threat to life on earth - now that just rubs me the wrong way. It's like hearing a snake-oil salesman or phoney-assed preacher scaring the rubes.

I hate to break it to you but if mammals could thrive at the temperatures and C02 levels of 55 million years ago then we can as well. I can't believe I even have to explain this to people.

Re: " We should be focusing on giving to our children the least debt and the most wealth - not merely survival." I could not agree more. And I may have misinterpreted the meaning and intent of your statement.

My point about survival is that many global warming people say that rising C02 levels are an existential threat - hence my use of the term survival. Sea levels change all the time, with or without industrial activity. Island chains appear and disappear; coastlines expand and contract. If C02 levels go up will life continue? Is it truly an existential threat?

Well there was an incredible variety of life 55 million years ago with C02 levels far above the worst-case scenario put forth by alarmist. THEREFORE it is NOT an existential threat.

Well. Sarcasm breeds sarcasm. Doesn't it?

I would like to avoid it.

I think we, as a species, are doing horrible things to our planet. I just think that mildly rising CO2 levels is trivial in comparison to the dumping toxic brews.

That is the point we disagree on. What makes the point when we starting monitoring changes to be significant? It isn't. And, the time frame is not appropriate. IMHO.

Which is why I didn't go back billions. I went back to when mammals were flourishing. We could have gone back earlier but the connection wouldn't have been as clear. Mammals were flourishing 55 million years ago. So the temperature and CO2 levels would be just fine for people. Life was flourishing (so it wouldn't be limited to just mammals).

Therefore when people bring up the "worst-case" CO2 levels as an example of an existential threat - and we see it's still far lower levels of 55 million years ago then we know we're hearing bullshit.