I enjoy your optimism, but...

...we need to be a little faster than that. Despite the current wars and recession, we live (historically) in a period of unprecedented wealth and global political stability. If we don't sort out our energy use before 2030, we aren't going to have the global stability necessary to mess around in space much longer.

I don't doubt your good faith, but you didn't check .com (or if you did, you didn't check back to the originating dns servers). It's certainly been seized, whereas the article says it hasn't.

I have no idea if you're correct about his specialties, but let's say you're right, what makes you so sure Obama isn't hiring him because he expects the policies he's about to enact are so progressive they will get the government sued by those who would advocate draconianism?

Precisely. This attack should have been impossible.

No, I have an understanding of science, the ability to read and analyse for myself, and the capacity to think beyond my own selfish ends - both in the present and extrapolated to mine, and my descendents' futures.

Oh dear, here we go again...

Are you talking about ozone? Because that has absolutely nothing to do with climate.

If you're talking about arctic sea ice, you're completely wrong.

Wrong. On average, antarctic monitoring stations on land have seen warming. The ocean temperatures around antarctica are absolutely clear.

You may be confused because antarctic ice is thickening. That's entirely consistent with predictions, though. A warmer planet does not mean everywhere changes in the same way. Warm air causes more evaporation from oceans, and more precipitation in places (in the case of the antarctic, more snow makes thicker ice). However, that gain is nothing compared to losses elsewhere.

You simply cannot extrapolate from individual local phenomena to the global climate, you have to look at the entire picture, which is very clear.

This article explains the science well:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-is-Antarctic-sea-ice-increasing.html

That's a logical fallacy. One cause (the end of an ice age) having resulted in sea level rise in the past does not discount another cause (anthropogenic emissions) resulting in sea level rise now.

If you're actually interested in educating yourself (which I'm starting to doubt) the NYT ran an accessible feature that got the science right last November:

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/science/earth/14ice.html

Categorically wrong. There are always localised fluctuations, but globally, we're losing glacier mass at an astonishing rate.

Remember what I said about local fluctuations? Look at the global picture and open your eyes. Possible localised causes around KMJ do nothing to change the extremely clear pattern of global glacier loss due to temperature rise.

Way to open and close with an ad-hominem.

There is a scam, and it's that the pro-market solutions camp has managed to convince governments we can trade our way out of this mess. You're absolutely right that there are huge amounts of money being made off of false solutions. However, there is absolutely no doubt about one thing: they are false solutions to a real problem.

As for the rest of your drivel, you either have no understanding of the science, are being paid to astro-turf, or (as I suspect is actually the case for most people that spout off your type of arguments) you're just in deeply entrenched psychological denial because you don't want to believe we need to make the types of urgent changes to curb emissions that we do, and come to grasp with what that means for your own life and society.

As a GHG, water really only matters as a feedback mechanism. i.e. what we put out there doesn't matter, since the equilibrium between the atmosphere + oceans, etc, is so rapid. Increase the temperature of the planet, though (i.e. through other GHGs) and you shift the equilibrium so that more water is in the atmosphere... then it's a problem as that heats up the planet even more. This is well understood, and definitely not the big uncertainty the "skeptics" make it out to be. Real climate has a solid overview if you want to read more:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/

Not quite, although you clearly know enough chemistry to have confused yourself, or accepted someone else's confusion.

Molecular hydrogen is far shorter lived in the atmosphere than inert CFCs. That's why CFCs were such a problem - they hang around in the troposphere long enough to mix up into the stratosphere. Molecular hydrogen is for the most part scrubbed out by the hydroxyl radical (OH) in the troposphere (via H2 + OH --> H2O + H and bacterial decomposition by soil).

So, any effect of hydrogen leaks on stratospheric ozone has to do with increased water vapour rather than direct reaction of H2 + O3. (Stratospheric water provides the surfaces required for ozone depletion reactions to take place on - polar stratospheric clouds - that's why water is important. See http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/about/ozone.html)

That's not really relevant, though, as estimates put the effect of even substantial hydrogen leaks on ozone depletion so small as makes no difference:

http://www.arp.harvard.edu/sci/climate/journalclub/Pyle.pdf

There was an earlier study claiming it was a problem, but that's basically been debunked, both by the paper above (which assumes there will be significant losses, but finds they don't affect stratospheric ozone) and - much more recently - this paper which estimates that losses will actually be very low, comparable to hydrogen production from our existing vehicles (yes, internal combustion engines release small amounts of hydrogen).

I am an atmospheric scientist, I am not your atmospheric scientist, etc...

I was pointing out that people accessing stuff they shouldn't likely happens more if there are no access restrictions. I'm not at all worried about *my* chat history, I know better than to say something I wouldn't say on a crowded bus. I'm 30 and married. Good jab though. Right, the lawn, sorry, I'm leaving ;)

So anyone who's ever worked at FB as an engineer will have likely downloaded copies of all their friends' / family's / ex-girlfriends' inboxes, chat history, etc.

Not surprising really.

The *only* reason is to increase page views, and thus ad impressions.

Is it really too much to ask the /. editors to quickly look around the page for the crud-free one-page "print" version link and post that for us all instead...

http://www.pcmag.com/print_article2/0,1217,a=259387,00.asp?hidPrint=true