How about just a fan?

Yes, indeed, they are free to quit their jobs — without having to give up on their house, country, and friends — if their assessment of the risk of coming to work is so drastically at odds with that of their employer.

Are you really so dense and solopsistic that you are incapable of understanding that for most people, this is no choice at all? For many Americans, yes, they will have to give up their house if they end up unemployed. Not to mention their health insurance - and I assume you aren't in favor of the government helping out with that either. You're pretending that personal autonomy isn't constrained by economic considerations, which is completely at odds with reality. You're also pretending that managers actually give a shit whether their employees are safe driving to work, when the history of industrial economies is full of evidence that they are often utterly careless without government intervention.

And if you don't like being told to move to Somalia, try getting some self-awareness and honesty, and admit that there are real tradeoffs to your utopian fantasies, with genuinely negative impacts on other people's lives. There are many persuasive and intellectually honest arguments for smaller government, but you're not making them.

They've created a buzzword so generic that it has already conquered 1/5th of software development. Bravo, pundits! Bravo!

individuals and businesses, made aware of the risks, can (and are supposed to!) make their own decisions

No, most individuals are at the mercy of whatever their employers decide, even if their employers decide that yes, they need to be at their jobs today even if it means driving in two feet of snow. Yes, they're quite "free" to quite their jobs, in the same sense that you are "free" to move to Somalia if you're unhappy with having a functioning government.

Let's get the government to rescue us from the bad deal the government made. We can trust the government to help us to when dealing with Verizon, can't we?

What do you think the "big picture" is? I think the "big picture" is modest warming that falls short of a crisis. In the "big picture", there aren't many effective levers to pull to solve the warming problem, and the cost of pulling them is higher than the benefit.

There's no "save the planet" or not. Because a slightly warmer planet is still a healthy planet. And we'd be better off focusing our resources on solving problems like disease and deprivation than on problems like a small amount of warming over a few hundred years as we advance technologically -- eventually to non-fossil fuel energy sources.

The temperature difference that made 2014 the "hottest year ever" is also less than the margin of error.

Historical temperatures are adjusted for comparison. This is well known. There are relatively few sites where the exact same thermometer, in the exact same structure, surrounded by the exact same surrounding structures, developments, and foliage has been in use for a hundred years or more. There are more in the US than in other countries. Many, many adjustments have to be made to the historical temperature readings to normalize them all with current readings and combine them into a global average representation. There are different methods for doing this that produce different results.

You should read up on the subject if you're interested in understanding it. If you just want to shoot down conspiracy straw men, then proceed. No knowledge or understanding of the subject is required.

Does your food contain DNA? Why aren't there mandatory warning labels for foods containing DNA?

If I can bound the period of time in my favor, the chances will be pretty high -- maybe not 50%. If I'm the one in charge of adjusting historical temperatures for comparison, I can probably do better than 50%.

You can forecast "hotter" and have about a 50-50 chance of being correct for any random period of time. How many models forecast these temperatures? It seem like the answer is most didn't come very close.

Unless the President's plan is enacted. If we do what the President suggests, sea levels will rise 1 or 2 mm less. Everyone shorter than 2 mm will thank us for our sacrifice.

It's opportunity to advance petty political nastiness under the banner of science. It's interesting that science is so frequently used this way, instead of being used as a method to advance knowledge.

Do scientists think using science this way is helping anyone?

Nothing is going to be done about climate change. But this is especially true if the climate change alarmism side wants to engage in petty political nastiness instead of legislative compromise.

I also find it hard to accept a wide array of wacky statements. Whenever I see a statistic or comparison that would be interesting if true, I assume it's not true. Usually such statements are, at best, highly exaggerated.