I am not an engineer (nor a zombie for that matter) so excuse me if I am wrong, but aren't you essentially describing how an AC unit works?

Revenue neutral carbon taxes have been successfully used to reduce the amount of dirty electricity being used (by raising the price of produce), and still leave home owners with more money in their pocket. They drive economic growth (energy innovation, home modernization, grid modernization), and they also cause economic harm (fossil fuel interests are losers). When you tally up the growth and harm, they come feakily close to zero. So, on average, it costs nothing, but Koch and Koch will need a new business model.

There are always winners and loser when incentive structures change. The real question is who is being subsized by the status quo, and is it fair. Fighting AGW will produce winners and losers but the consensus among economists it that it will have a negligble effect on overall economic growth. That means we can move away from fossil fuels and, on average, we will still be as rich in the future even if AGW is a hoax. If it isn't a hoax, then we will be a lot richer in the future if the USA still keeps all the naval bases and city facilities and property that are at sea level -- to name merely one certain economic downside of warming.

A revenue neutral pollution tax can be used to compensate the losers, other than the fossil fuel industry, who are enjoying huge negative externalities right now. No wonder Koch and Koch are spending so much money shaping political perceptions on the issue.

It is a fallacy that we must sacrifice much to fight climate change. The real alarmists are the economic alarmists. (Sure there are far left weirdos who use AGW as cover for their anti-capitalist economics, but their lunacy does not reflect the reality of the problem.) The consensus from economists is that a lot can be done with zero net effect to the economy. This is not just technology. We must change incentive structures that are already biased toward drawing down on fossil fuels. (Remember, we are not paying the true cost of our energy, for a lot of complex reasons.) The technology is already ready, with wind energy already having a total cost of ownership lower than coal. Solar is more expensive, for now, but will soon be cheaper. The only reason why we burn coal is because it is subsidized. Thus, pricing in the cost of pollution will lower the overall energy costs of the nation, and also drive economic growth. This is because most of the world is using revenue neutral taxes -- taking money from polluters and then creating incentives for housing and grid modernization. We already have more people working in renewable energy than in coal in the USA. Sure renewables do not supply reliable baseline energy, but that is a grid problem that is being solved by technology. You can look up the solutions if you are interested. The main obstacle in the USA is the nimby crowd. (The USA needs more high voltage transmission between parts of the country.)

Normal distributions make sense for real numbers. How are you converting "intelligence" to a real number? If you are using IQ, then it's not normal (it can't be, since it's bounded below by zero and a normal extends to infinity both ways).

Lobbying is the act of telling an official how to vote by making a convincing argument.. Bribery is paying money for a vote or action.

A convincing argument as in "I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse"?

You are talking about one small vein of climate science -- and creating and testing models is actually science. It's part of "signal processing". I know you will get distracted by that last comment. So again, and speaking very, very, slowly. Modeling is a tiny part of climate science, and the AGW hypothesis does not depend on it in the slightest. See here and here.

The political argument is only choking on its own blood within conservative circles in the USA, Australia, and Canada -- with the later two making some discernible progress. The GOP is not equal to the entire world.

No amount of sound argumentation will help you phantom, because, as we both know, you are only interested in tickling your own motivated reasoning. It doesn't matter that the AGW theory doesn't rely on models. It doesn't matter surface temperature has next to nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter that 2014 was warmer than 1998, when there was no El Nino in 2014, and a record El Nino in 1998.

What matters is that you are right, and you are going to prove it, no matter what.

Do you know what a mimophant is? Either Mann is one, or his detractors are. Hint, his detractors came after him -- personally -- and now they are playing the victim if he so much as protests, let alone follow sound legal council over witch-hunts.

Well, you probably know too much about the "science" to actually understand one of Mann's papers -- so it is really pitched at your level.

And perhaps a combination of Ralph Nadar, and the US Supreme Court had something to do with Al Gore losing as well. I sure miss W. though. I time when the economy boomed, deficits came down, and the US garnered the world's respect.

What worries me about radios is the lack of variety in the represented genres. I don't know about where you live, but here all stations seem copies of the same one, and they all broadcast the same kind of pop-ish music. The less popular genres have zero chances of making it out to the public. The cycle will never be broken if it goes like (people like and choose music based on radio broadcasts) -> (artists on radios get famous and popular) -> (radios choose music based on their perception of people's taste).

By the way, wtf is a "x86 laptop improvement"?

"Because said companies fradulently claim these reviews are legitimate." *citation needed.

They were not fined because they had fake reviews in the first place; they were fined for fraudolent advertising, because their billboards were like "I haz one bazillion reviews!! And they are totally genuine and authentic from real people!!1!"