Having been, up until just a few months ago, one of those unwise people who used the same, only moderately complex password everywhere, for everything, I understand the convenience issue. There are dozens of sites that want you to login, and you can't remember dozens of passwords. Best practice is to maintain separate passwords, so the loss of one won't affect the others... but that doesn't feel like something that could happen to YOU.
Then, something DID happen to me; I got a warning from the Guild Wars 2 people that someone was trying to access my account, with my password, from China, and would I confirm the access? (no!) This woke me up, because it immediately occurred to me that I was using the same password for my gmail which secured that access method, which implied that, since the email had only just come in, that I might literally only have minutes to do something about it. And so I quickly changed all my compromised, important passwords... and then, the same day, downloaded a password manager.
Nowadays, I don't even use words for passwords; they're all long groupings of random characters, which I couldn't remember if I tried. Fortunately, I don't need to try; I've got machines to handle this stuff for me, and I don't even need to bother typing the monsters myself.

Ahem. I had meant 'if they have a piece of paper you signed that cedes your rights to something that you're legally able to cede, as in the case of invention rights, then it's legal for them to take all credit and profit, even retroactively, if it turns out that you wind up coming up with something of value at some point while you were under contract with them, or if lawyers have grounds to argue that you came up with the idea during that time'. Not the trivially false 'absolutely anything you sign is automatically legally binding, regardless of all laws anywhere'. But that first is long to say, and it should have made sense in context, being a statement of the status quo as it exists and is being discussed in this article, so your strawman regarding an illogical extension of the point is not helpful.
Of course, as you implied, there are laws that limit what you can legally sign away. That's what's being discussed here, whether invention rights is something that should be legal to sign away, especially as part of a standard employment contract that you hit non-R&D workers with, just for leverage in case they should happen to think of something that might be worth something ever. That was why I brought up my own anecdote; it's a widespread practice to tack on 'we get your intellectual property' clauses, because it costs nothing and gives lawyers a nice big hook.

Bleh, I know what you mean. There was a 'we get to own your inventions' clause in the contract for the last job I had, even though the job itself was a bullshit minimum wage tech-support deal. If they can get you to sign it, it's legal. If you don't feel like signing, there's plenty of people clamoring for a job, they don't need you specifically.

For starters, none of the emissions/pollution reduction stuff (the favored sort of political solution) will undo what's already been done. If humanity were to be wiped out instantly, as some of the more rabid environmentalists seem to want, the changes we've made will remain, since the chemistry has in fact been altered, and won't spontaneously change back on it's own. To reverse it, we'll need to make the oceans more alkali, back the way they were, which is a different problem. The kinds of a solutions that'd be needed are chemical (dump large quantities of certain chemicals into the oceans and atmosphere, to reverse the trend), biological (engineer organisms that can not only survive in an acidic environment, but make it more alkali over time by it's waste products), or something of the same sort.

And you're not getting it. You seem to be suffering under the delusion that people are monolithic, and will all act in concert given evidence to suggest a threat on the order of centuries. We aren't. That doesn't mean that we can't solve a problem like this, though.
There are three general types of solutions out there... unanimous solutions, which require everyone's cooperation, and fail if anyone defects; majority solutions, which require most people to cooperate, but fails unless most people cooperate; and minority solutions, which are effective if only a handful of people cooperate, regardless of what anyone else does. Climate is not the sort of problem that requires a unanimous solution (fortunately, as unanimous solutions are generally unworkable). Majority solutions are the type which most people are trying now... unsuccessfully, as it takes a great deal of effort to enact a majority change, and anyone who defects benefits. For that matter, anyone who contributes less to the problem than the rest benefits. Emission reductions is a huge political issue that the big players can fight about all day, as an excuse to bash at their rivals and engage in economic warfare... but it's ultimately pointless, as the best case scenario only slows the process down, and the best case scenario is ludicrously unrealistic. The really effective solutions are minority solutions, which don't require everyone to cooperate; all they need is for people to enact them. Geoengineering is something that single wealthy individuals could successfully engage in. There are proposed schemes which could have a notable impact on climate which would merely cost millions of dollars, rather than the trillions fought over at the level of majority solutions.
Accordingly, when it comes down to it, that's what'll happen; some people who've seen it coming will get together the funds needed to enact change, and they'll just do it. Not, as you seem to think, utter catastrophe and the end human life. Change on the order of centuries is something we humans can deal with, easily. Shame about the lions and tigers, but most people don't really care that much about them... and if we should happen to find ourselves regretful at some future date, we'll be able to clone them back up from stored samples,

That's not really meaningful. A lot can change in 60 years, after all; we'll be a lot better equipped to tackle the problem by the time we're actually in a position to land there and start setting up shop. Any specifics at this point, would be pure speculation... but if you're not averse to fiction, I'd refer you to Red Mars. If the goal isn't 'immediately fabricate a habitable environment from scratch', but instead 'make small, incremental changes, leading in the direction of the environment you want', the problem is much easier. Anywhere you can add extra heat, oxygen, or water to the system is a net win; the question is simply how to most effectively do this on a large scale. And there's lots of things you can do to push the process along in small ways, which you can do on the side as you study the big picture.

Don't mistake me. I don't mean to suggest that this is not at all a problem; my point was that it's not an urgent problem. Yes, it's a change, in a system that doesn't normally change. But it's a slow change, and even blind natural selection does pretty well at dealing with slow changes. And we've got intelligent problem-solving, which can handle much faster changes. Accordingly, we've got time to solve it. In fact, we've got time to sit around scratching our heads and researching whole new fields of science to develop better tools for solving it. We don't have forever, of course, but we've got time for a measured, deliberate response.
And if things do suddenly jump the gaps, and get worse faster than expected, than we can get up off our asses and start implementing some of the more drastic solutions that we know about. The reason why we're not currently employing geoengineering, for example, is because it's a completely new field of scientific endeavor, and it's kinda sensible to do some basic investigation into the consequences before we start deliberately fucking around with the climate. But if things change suddenly, or new data comes in suggesting we have less time than anticipated... then we can jump right in and see what happens. Indeed, we'll have no choice. Fortunately, our preliminary studies of geoengineering suggest that making intentional modifications to the planet is much faster and more effective at changing the climate than making minuscule adjustments to the levels of waste we're emitting.

Not really. Mars One, for instance, is claiming to have a plan to permanently colonize Mars beginning in 2023, at a fairly modest cost. That, of course, is really optimistic, but at the same time, it'd be really pessimistic to say that nobody will be living on Mars in 2070. And once there are people on Mars, odds are good that they'll be starting some kind of terraforming effort almost immediately, if only as a small-scale experiment to see how easy it is to affect change. Now, I don't expect them to have much success within this century... terraforming is a very long-term project. But something would have to go drastically wrong (engineered pandemic, asteroid strike, or some similar civilization-ending cataclysm) in order to stop us from at least getting started.

Not sure why people tend to get really freaked out by things like minor pH shifts and whatnot. It's a change in environmental conditions, the same as occur all the time, even without our involvement. Those species which can adapt to the new conditions, do so, and thrive. Those which cannot, die off. The view that we should somehow intervene to save species which are being selected against is baffling to me. Extinctions, even mass extinctions, happened before we came along, and they'll continue to happen regardless of what we do.
So, say you're right, and the coral reefs do get wiped out. That's not something that'll happen immediately, for one thing; we'll have plenty of warning to see it happening, and plenty of opportunity to do something about it. And not 'do something about it' in the sense of 'emissions reduction' and similar unfeasible nonsense; whatever we in the First World begrudgingly contribute on that front, wringing our hands over the economic impact of the smallest marginal reductions, China and India, and the rising Third World, will more then make up for as they modernize. I'm talking 'do something about it' in the sense of geoengineering. When the environment becomes a problem to become an actual threat to humans, instead of to some marginal species which was dying off on it's own anyway, then we humans will go out there and fix it. If it comes down to it, and everything really is going to hell in a handbasket, we can design our own replacement ecosystems, to the tolerances needed to survive the conditions at hand, in less time than it'd take for mere warming to wipe us out.
Unpalatable solution, unintended consequences? Most certainly. But climate change is slow, and humans think fast. In 100 years, by the time the more alarmist predictions suggest we'll be dealing with 5 degrees more global heat, we'll be busy terraforming Mars, and long since have mitigated our own climate problems, to whatever degree they happen to need mitigating.

Which is NOT what the 'sawtooth' approach suggests. Google 'sawtooth', on an image search. Line goes up at a fixed rate, then crashes to nothing; repeat forever. So you basically get to alternate ramping up your caffeine intake with crushing withdrawal. Doesn't sound fun.

Good math, but you're ignoring the effect of mass on density. Earth is more dense than (for example) Mars because its greater mass results in more gravitational pressure, thus compressing its core, and increasing the density. There are limits, of course, and composition really does play a much bigger role than mass... hence why Mercury is the second densest planet in our system, despite being significantly less massive, and why gas giants have much lower densities, despite being vastly more massive. Even so, given that we don't know anything about the composition of this planet, odds are that since it's more massive than Earth, it'll have a higher density. How much higher would be pure speculation, of course, but because of that factor, I'd bet on a radius less than 1.9 Earths, and a gravity of more than 2 G.

The article suggests that it actually gets less radiation than Earth does, so that sort of bombardment probably isn't an issue. That said, the lack of radiation could very well make advanced life unlikely, given the effects it'd have on mutation rate.

As a search engine or other aggregator, sure you can. The incentive to do so is revenue, the disincentive to do so is a fee. If you think it feasible that a French court could actually compel you to pay a fee, you drop the content. If you're pretty certain that you don't give a shit about the French legal system, you might consider 'pirating' the content, by linking without paying the fee... but major sites like Google won't be able to get away with that. They can, however, get away with not indexing non-free content, in the same way they can get away with not indexing robot-excluded content.

I'm skeptical. The 'monster' data they have doesn't seem particularly focused, and statistically saying 'well, it was all over the place, but it averages to the eyes' doesn't seem right in this case. A study of images showing humans and animals might be more revealing.

Good point, actually. You can't write a law that says 'Google', really; and you probably can't even apply it only to search engines. Accordingly, the law will be fairly broad and crippling... to people that have to abide by French law. Since those people are mostly French, and since people outside France will just not bother and drop French content, such a law would be damaging to France, and have minimal impact everywhere else.