Journalism as its finest. It's like a blind person laying a puzzle.

An intentional blinder could be built to sweep square miles of terrain from a drone. The protocol at least prevent that sort of weapon, though it's a bit retarded that trying or succeeding in killing someone is totally okay but anything less is not.

It's wavelength dependent. visible light will blind people but for the military combat lasers they probably use wavelengths that the eye is opaque to, meaning no focusing on the retina and damage due to minor scatter and reflections, but will still literally cook the eye if directly exposed.

Also, the military type blinder weapons that was developed in the past to intentionally blind had a kilometer+ range. Blindness at 50 meter or blindness at 2km? Is it really a getting around or unintenional consequences(in the same manner that less-lethal weapons can still be lethal)

You'll love the next gen firearm that uses geolocation to make sure you don't use it in government buildings and face recognition to ensure you don't shoot your family or self, with additional settings for not firing against facebooks friends. With the premium service it will also refuse to fire unless sure you'll hit your target to save bullets, platinum service will also check the financial status of the would be victim along with consulting expert systems for potential legal complications and only shoot if it considers you to have good case in court or can hire a better lawyer than the victim or his family.

The gold plated gun edition will feature a waterpass lock and only fire when held sideways and use force feedback to ensure aiming is utterly impossible. Built in police radio optional.

Also, using the sentinel edition activesecurity feature you can leave it on a table facing your least secure window and it will automatically shoot would-be burglars and call the police on its own!

For families with pets or young children you can get it covered in brightly coloured rubber that's food safe and chewing resistant.

If you can finance it yourself and find it profitable or sensible to do so, then feel free to do it yourself, but don't call for government intervention based on some simple napkin calculations.

Also, the WA situation doesn't sound very stable, utilities failing could mean some price spikes and other problems.

How is the energy free when you need a 3kW solar system on every house for it to work? Also, they cost more than $3k.
Also, if each house needs 3kW to sustain itself, what's left to distribute? Also, homes use what on average? 30% of the total electricity?
Also, trying to load balance over long distances doesn't work because we don't have superconducting electricity grids yet. Also, intermittency means you still need classic power at approximately the same extent as now to fill in the gaps.

I can prove that an underground solar farm would be a great idea with a back of the napkin calculation, reality however is not so easily simplified.

In environmentalist lala-land neither the end nor the means matters as long as your ideology is sitting in the drivers seat.

If natural systems can sink all supposed manmade change, why could natural systems cause all the change too? If the natural sink capability massively underrated too, what's to say there's really a cause to worry at all?

If we really will be screwed by society being forced to change due to climate, what's to say we won't be equally or greater screwed if we're forced to change due to policy? If natural variability is underrated as suggested by the previous paragraph, what's to say we can't be fucked over twice; first by policy and then by natural climate drift? Unless you're denying ice ages we already know that natural drift have a very wide range.

What about the people with stake in large multinational wind and solar producers claiming we can save ourself with all-renewable society? Are they saints incapable of lying, or could it be that any alarmism and climate hype serves their cause and fills their pockets?

Why should we listen to people like you who claim that we're bound for disaster with certainity, while at the same time IPCC is revising their predictions downwards for every new report released. Why should we suppress the debate by claiming it's all settled when it obviously isn't?

Why is polarizing hardline rethoric constantly used by environmentalists? Why is the pro-agw side always the good side and everything else is universally bad? Could it be that you're not actually seeking facts to improve earth science, but just want to advance your activist agenda and shallow ideological belief?

Why should I trust a non-peer reviewed blogpost from the PR outlet of the people finding themself in an embarassing pinch due to the catastrophic failure of their models?

Why should I even trust their peer reviewed material when it obviously have minimal to no predictive power and by their own admission have become a failure due to temperatures being wildly divergent to their models/guesses.

What functions do peer review fill when the peers are just as clueless as the authors but just happen to share the hunch or opinon? We might as well use anonymous online polling.

The hiatus still continues.
And yes there is a hiatus nowdays even in the mainstream pro-agw camp, saying otherwise makes you a denier.

I was thinking more about a way to make the schoolbus obsolete.

Do you ever feel responsible or bad for all the lives 4chan have ruined?
I mean there's a lot of anons that have a very unhealthy relationship to their favourite board and spends most of their waking time posting.

Should your google queries be put in a slow lane with 10k ms ping because they didn't fork over $100 mil for premium service?
Should netflix pay premium for every mb because they're a "high bandwidth user" or face throttling to speeds where compression drops to 120p?

Should ISPs be allowed to have an even more oppressive position than they already have?

According to your logic my toxicity model for iron in well water in Nowhereistan is unaffected by the fact that arsenic levels was elevated by 15000 times above normal in the data samples, because it was at that level all along.

a) What about the hiatus?
b) instrumental data from the layers of the atmosphere does not agree with the proposed mechanisms of stratospheric heating or whatever was suggested.
c) human CO2 emissions are naturally absorbed, just not as fast as we emit it. but given a) and b) and the fact that CO2 is non toxic and improves plant growth I see no reason why we should care about that as opposed to particulate pollutions and toxic emissions.