Clayton's story is a sad one, beginning with his mother allegedly using drugs while pregnant with him. She then abandoned him at the age of three, which devastated him and caused him to become extremely attached to his father, whom he idolized. Unfortunately, his father was a poor role model. He physically abused Clayton and forced him into using drugs at a young age. He encouraged sexually activity and frequently watched pornographic movies in front of him. Clayton's father also taught him and encouraged him to steal, punishing Clayton if he got caught. Extended family members testified that they believe Clayton was sexually abused by his older brother. Allegedly, while Clayton was incarcerated at an adult correctional facility at the age of 16, he was raped by several older men.

If you fuck someone up, you end up with a fuck-up.

Deserve to die? I don't even know how you judge such things. I do know that many who die deserve to live. We should focus our attention on that one first.

This source notes that:
1) Autism is not an immune-mediated disease. Unlike autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis, there is no evidence of immune activation or inflammatory lesions in the CNS of people with autism [38]. In fact, current data suggest that genetic variation in neuronal circuitry that affects synaptic development might in part account for autistic behavior [39]. Thus, speculation that an exaggerated or inappropriate immune response to vaccina-tion precipitates autism is at variance with current scientific data that address the pathogenesis of autism.
and
2) Vaccines do not overwhelm the immune system. Although the infant immune system is relatively naive, it is immediately capable of generating a vast array of protective responses; even conservative estimates predict the capacity to respond to thousands of vaccines simultaneously [30]. Consistent with this theoretical exercise, combinations of vaccines induce immune responses comparable to those given individually[31].

It's probably a good idea to go 100% low-to-zero emissions for power generation. Air travel pretty much needs kerosine ATM.

But that includes nuclear, which isn't "renewable", it's just not fossil fuel.

Not all of it. Having a hydro power pick up the variable part of the generation doesn't. And thermal storage by molten saltpeter has large economies of scale. And the cost and efficiency of wind turbines and PV cells are improving on a scale that's hard to believe. (Note that large commercial solar generators tend to be concentration solar rather than PV cells).

Battery storage is okay for a residential home with no grid connection. For commercial sized operations, alternatives like liquid saltpeter off much better efficiency. At concentration solar plants, the heat is captured in the saltpeter first, and so the energy loss from converting electricity to heat and back again does not occur.

No, industrial storage in saltpeter systems is much cheaper than batteries. Both for initial material costs, and for ongoing maintenance.

On the other hand the lack of fuel costs means that the cost of electricity doesn't fluctuate with the whims of the global economy, and Saudi Aramco.

This provides a much more reliable platform for building an economy.

But I certainly agree that the first 30%-40% solar and wind is cheaper than the next 60%-70%, because of the need to fit generation to use. So lets run to that point at least.

I don't think I did anything to suggest significance. All I did was show that the loss of the bison herds of North America wasn't accompanied by a drop in Methane production by the bovine gut. We could calculate the significance if you like.

Ah. A climate science conspiracy theorist.

Hi.

Did you know that there are about zero scholarly papers and about zero scientific organizations that support climate change denial?

[1] As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[11] no scientific body of national or international standing rejected the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.

[2] Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

You don't believe in the greenhouse effect?

What you have there starts with a straw man. No one is suggesting putting chains on the growth of civilization nor freedoms.

As to humans adapting, surviving, overcoming and prospering, the way we have always done that is to use science. Not ignore it.

With the growth of technology, perhaps. The magnitude of civilization by a lot of measures merely increases our vulnerability.

This is very pie-in-the-sky. Ignoring issues that are killing about 150,000 people annually right now, and set to grow, because one day we might be able to move industry and food production off planet, when we have zero capacity to move anything living off planet without ferrying all their biological needs up from earth, and also exposing them to considerable risk, is certainly visionary. But reducing greenhouse emissions is something we can do today. And should have done 30 years ago.

No. We've already done a lot of damage to the environment and climate. The point is that reducing emissions is the economically most cost effective path. So we should do that. Adaptation is much more costly when you do the economic analysis.

> So you're assuming that everything we currently have disappears over night? I'm assuming complex manufacturing plants stop due to the apocalypse. You still have your car. But you can only fill it up until the petrol stations run out, because no-one is refining oil. And you can only repair it to the extent that you can do yourself. And if you want parts you have to go to the warehouse yourself and find it. And that only works until the warehouse stock runs out.

I don't think that we have the power grid, if its an apocalypse. So you can do operations so long as your diesel generators maintain power. And that's if you have a couple of surgical nurses and an anesthetist. Without a working radiology department, most of your surgery is going to be investigative, in the hope you can do something about it once you get it.

The capacity to maintain the sterile field would compromise after a few patients if you can't run the autoclave, even if you have some sterile equipment available on shelves. And plenty of antibacterial foam.

Overall, I think that starvation due to not being able to supply food is going to be the bottleneck rather than inability to set complex fractures.

GPS would only slowly fail, if the apocalypse is not solar activity related. Still, there's not a lot that would be of serious survival value to compute. You urgently need food, you urgently need clean water, and that probably means leaving the city once the sewers fail, and you urgently need fire to keep warm and cook, once your barbecue is out of gas.

Fertilizer manufacture is only responsible for about 4.5% of the emssions from the food system according to this nature news article.

Phosphate is a limited resource. We're going to have to find a way to do without at some point. In the meantime, where there is current starvation in the Sahel and South East Asia, fertilizer is often not used each year, or not used at all, so the hit to production will occur first where it doesn't matter as much. Food prices will increase in the first world.

Carrying the nutrients off the soil each year with the crop is a bad idea. The way to put them back is to shit them back on to the agricultural land. This will eventually happen, I think. There's some social (and health) issues to overcome, but there's really no sustainable way forward that includes washing the nitrates and phosphates out to sea.

Any scientists care to produce data on how much cooling that hunting the large numbers of truly enormous herds of buffalo that covered many square miles to near-extinction produced? The temperature records I've seen do not show any such corresponding result.

There are about twice as many bovines in the US now. Estimates of the population of bison in the 1500s are 30-60million. There are 90million cattle in the country now. The biomass of a bison was commonly 300-1000kg. The biomass of a beef cow at slaughter is about 600kg average: So I what you're seeing is a replacement of one bovine with another, with a increase in population and biomass.

They work when you have a hydro dam behind them that can be altered to meet demand, it doesn't need to be gas or coal.
To use solar and wind when isolated from the grid, you need batteries.
On the power station level, there are options; Thermal storage in liquid saltpeter is pretty efficient, and that has been used in commercial plants for over 5 years last month. There may be better solutions (so to speak) now.

Or support with Hydro. Or store the energy, perhaps thermally. Away from good grid infrastructure, it might be cost effective to had the consumer store their own energy.

But over building and under committing is another option. It's just not the only one. The other choices don't require halving your sales though, so I'd go with one of them.

Funny metric. It's the subsidy as a percentage of cost of the fossil fuel that affects the market, not that the US has a lot of GDP from low-energy-cost industries such as IP compared to other countries.

A subsidy is the taxpayer paying for something that helps the companies bottom line, however obfuscated. Expensing of exploration costs is a big money spinner for medium operations, because exploration can be timed to coincide with a good profit year. It turns out that geothermal energy companies have the same tax breaks, but the cost to the taxpayer in lost revenues is almost all from fossil fuel exploration.

CO2 is more significant to the current climate change because it is a long-lived greenhouse gas, so its increase in concentration increases the radiative forcing for many decades or centuries. Increasing the water vapour only increases rainfall over the following week.

Nitrogen and Oxygen aren't significantly greenhouse or anti-greenhouse.

The IMF reckons that subsidies before tax to fossil fuel industries was about half a trillion dollars in 2009. So you might be mistake about that. (Or 1.9 trillion if you count externalities).

PV solar is ridiculously cheap because of a glut, but wind turbines are becoming genuinely cheap and efficient. They're both viable in certain circumstances and places. PV solar is viable if it is generated at the point of use, as so circumvents the need for the infrastructure of the grid. Wind is viable in certain climates. Geothermal is viable if you have the geology. Hydro is also viable if you have the geography.

Prices are dropping and efficiency is increasing. I agree that taking into account costs associated with the grid, PV is generally not at grid parity. But people are talking about hitting grid parity with PV by the end of the decade. And for a roof-top unit supplying power to the house, it is already better than grid in many places. (assuming that this means that the transmission costs can be ignored).

The idea has been to move from fossil fuels to other energy sources. We simply can do that. Battery electric farm equipment and a nuclear power station is one way.

Point of precision: Cow flatulence isn't a significant source of greenhouse gasses. Cow digestion makes methane, but it is released at the front end of said bovine.

Model's aren't completely accurate. If you're asking for one, you've got an agenda that is not science based.

Where do you find a reasonably accurate one? You could start at NASA, NOAA, HadCRU, DOE, NCAR, or the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, CERFACS (France) for some well known General Circulation Models.

There are things that are settled. The solar system is heliocentric. Human activity is probably responsible for most of the current warming. Plate tectonics causes continental drift.

Over the past decade or so, it ranges between 0.5 and 1 W/m st the top of atmosphere. It's accurate enough to know that reducing emissions alone almost certainly isn't going to avoid the 3C change that is considered dangerous. (If you're not concerned with dropping biodiversity too much).

I doubt it. Even above the tropopause sulphate aerosols last years and not decades. Lower technology methods such as increasing cloud reflectivity and tropospheric sulphate aerosols stop having an effect the week following the one you stop doing it.

Those are the methods discussed in TFA.

Big call. How much "slop factor" is there, what degree of confidence would be high enough across the spectrum of scientists?

Why do you need to be across the spectrum of scientists?

Wouldn't reasonable expectation based on a vast majority opinion be sufficient to act?

I think that you're mistaken if you think that politics, culture, technology, medicine and scientific knowledge are independent of climate. There are wars in the Norther of Africa now that are probably strongly affected by nomadic peoples having to wander into non-traditional lands because of droughts probably attributable to the anthropogenic part of climate change.

Wars affect politics and culture directly, and indirectly technology and scientific knowledge. Medicine? There are many medical effect of climate change that are behind studied.

Naturally? Did you know that burning fossil fuels releases greenhouse gasses, and that greenhouse gasses cause the greenhouse effect?

There's nothing natural about what the climate is doing now, and neither is it "cycling".

If the action is introduce additional sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere (or upper troposphere), how long is this "very long long time?". Seven years? Eight?

You're thinking of a weenie little apocalypse. The word kind of implies something a bit bigger.

A doctor, and engineer and a scientist are no use in a world that can no longer produce drugs or scalpels, construction materials or lab equipment.

Post apocalypse useful skills would be bivouac building, stone toolmaking, farming and animal handling. Rope-making from vegetable fibres and tannery would come in handy, and the single most useful skill in the world would be making a fire without a match.

But no engineer can build a combustion engine from magnetite sand, and no doctor can pin together a fractured bone with their bare hands.

Not necessarily. We already have a similar law in place. It's illegal to videotape you, make pictures of you or record you in any other way unless you give prior consent, unless you are a "person of public interest", i.e. a celebrity, a politician or similar.

Not in Australia.

You are able to make any recording of anyone so long as you do it from public property with a very few particular exceptions.

• You need to obtain consent to use it for commercial purpose
• You need to obtain consent if the person is undressed or engaged in a private act, and they're in circumstances where a reasonable person would reasonably expect to be afforded privacy, and you're taking the photo for sexual gratification
• You can't take an indecent photograph of someone under 16. (That's with or without consent, and unlike the two above, this one is criminal).

There's laws against workplace surveillance by employers, and there are laws against peeping and against being a public nuisance, which means interfering with someone else's enjoyment of a public place, but broadly speaking, if you can see it, you can photograph it.

what a wonderful way to utilise $3-5M to the advancement of society, produce a valuable commodity and generally bolster the economy in these times of decreasing worth.