So 1) Artificial scarcity of carbon based fuel
2) Redistribution of wealth
3) Let the market deal with the extra government regulations

Yes extremely disturbing that people can only be in one of three political categories... And disturbing that it looks so smooth and regular that either they had a ridiculously large sample size or they made up the data.

Exactly. Warming may be happening and CO2 emissions may be making it worse. But you can't scientifically say that we should cut carbon emissions, tax carbon, use ethanol, subsidize electric vehicles, etc.

While I am sure the most vocal "deniers" and those with the most camera time are the crackpots who say the earth isn't getting warmer. However, there are many legitimate reasons to doubt how much of the observed warming is caused by humans and how much damage might occur in the future because of the human caused portion of the warming.

The climate is changing (Has the climate ever been constant?)
The current trend is warming (Was it warming before humans started affecting climate?)
It appears that the warming is increasing (How much is due to human causes?)
The warming will likely cause damage to human settlements (Is it more cost effective to move the humans? How catastrophic will it be? Are there potential benefits that might offset the damage to civilization? Might we be better off on a warmer planet?)

The main points are agreed upon my most rational people, the questions in parentheses are the ones that get glossed over. They are the assumptions based on the data that all of the money and the "carbon is pollution" politics that affect all our lives.

It'll probably pay for itself and maybe if the police departments sold their armored vehicles and camo uniforms they'd be able to afford the initial capital.

Seriously. It's bad enough with an extension to block auto playing videos, but on a computer where the videos auto play you could hook up a hydroelectric generator to all that falling water and sell the power to raise money for charity.

Well I'll call you in 100 years and we'll see who was right...

I've always thought it was "Rapey scan." I don't know how the people that named it couldn't see it that way...

No, Rapey-scan.

I can just visualize the conference room where they decided the name of the product:

Hey guys, we need to name this unconstitutional search device that shows nude images of disgruntled people who will hate us. Any ideas?

Well we want it to sound fast so they don't blame lines on it... How about "rapid scan".

Hmm, that doesn't sound very awesome... How about "Rapiscan?"

But doesn't that look a bit like it has the word "rape" in it?

No! Get your mind out of the gutter Simmons. No non-pervert would ever pronounce it that way!

Well basically something like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

It wasn't a failure of security that caused 9/11, it was a failure of policy. The by the book way to deal with a hijacking was to comply with the terrorists with the idea that they just wanted the passengers and plane for ransom, not to use the plane itself as a weapon. Today the pilots would intentionally crash the plane before they would allow the hijackers control over the aircraft.

They should have at least made a curved tread pattern. Those points of the chevrons are huge stress risers which makes fatigue fracture much more likely.

Yes, because actual scientists have no ideological motivations. And science is defined by the majority of other scientists. We can't start letting statisticians and people who understand math start analyzing science!

But it would require us to stop using alternative fuels like ethanol. We have been deforesting land to form new planting fields to grown corn and sugar cane in for ethanol production. That was a climate win right? How could government solutions possibly make us worse off?

Exactly. Climate change is inevitable. Humans can affect the climate. There is only one question we need to figure out... Do we want the planet to get warmer or colder? I prefer warmer myself. Other people are deluded enough to believe they can keep it the same.

In what universe is the Nobel prize not a popularity contest among peers?