It is what it is, no matter what you call it.

Why not? I was on a Delta flight the other day and the only way to purchase in-flight cocktails was via credit card. On another flight the same day, the same purchase could only be made in cash. I am not aware of any laws that require businesses to accept a certain form of payment, and why should there be? If a business doesn't accept cash (or credit cards, or chickens, or bitcoin) and their customers prefer that method of payment, it will show up in their bottom line. Why would the government need to intervene in such a transaction?

Why? It would take only one scientist to falsify AGW. All we need now is the evidence.

All that stuff in science textbooks has been the consensus of scientists for years. How else are you going to decide what to put in a textbook beside consensus? Just put in your textbook things you would like to believe are true?

So are you going to take potshots at police and medical helicopers as well? Because they are "invading your privacy" just as much as a drone (police probably more, they tend to have powerful optics).

The problem seems to be with drivers who were born between 1893 and 1897. If the DMV existed with computerized records in 1960, these people would have been in their sixties and probably still have drivers licenses. Apparently their records are still in the system.

Everything is nothing more than an honor system. You trust the operating system to accept only the password you chose when someone tries to log in to your account. You trust the compiler not to secretly install backdoors into software. You trust the hardware manufacturers not to implement secret knocks to allow backdoor access. You trust your browser to handle SSL certificates appropriately. If you don't like it, you can build your own hardware and software from scratch and feel safe in the knowledge that it's secure. That is, if you trust that you didn't make a mistake.

No, it is their money that they used. Once you traded your money for gasoline, it's no longer your money. If you don't like that then don't make the trade, nobody is forcing you to do so.

I don't think they have agreed it's the most cost-effective solution. I think the bottom line is that they agree that the effects of a warming of 2 degrees Celsius are so bad that we should try hard to avert it. We don't have the technology to remove enough carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to meet that goal, so the only option is to reduce emissions. Now, if you have a better idea, please speak up!

We don't have any way of storing energy efficiently? Really?

Governments around the world have agreed that we need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. That's the plan. If you have a better plan, write to your government and let them know what it is.

We're putting 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. At that rate, every person on Earth would be responsible for creating nearly 5 tons of tree each year to eat up all that carbon dioxide. I don't think there's enough space on land for that, even if everyone could plant trees that fast.

"They" didn't change "it". Global warming means exactly what it sounds like it means: the Earth is getting warmer on average. Climate change means all of the associated changes in the climate that go along with increased temperatures, such as increased drought in areas that are prone to drought. And you're right that global warming doesn't mean that it will get warmer everywhere, because at first some places will become cooler. However, as global warming progresses, it will eventually be hotter on each place on Earth than it was in the early 1900s.

Why would the ice in the Arctic and Antarctica be melting if the earth is cooling?

What predictions would those be? I've seen the temperature rise, the sea levels rise, and ice in the Arctic, the Antarctic, and Greenland melt. Those were all predicted before they occurred.