reasonably lucrative work

I could understand Fiorina just wanting the attention - but dear God, I hope she doesn't need the money. That $20 million severance package would last most ordinary people a lifetime.

We've been carefully growing for two full seasons, with some plants getting multiple cycles. No losses at all, other than one hailstorm, which we now prophylactically deal with by having the project under a bit of roof where it can still get the sun it needs, but hail can't hit it straight on. Not a perfect solution, but it's something. And it has worked.

I am convinced that the details matter.

I think her target market is Republicans who want a viable female challenger to Hilary. Realistically, she's setting herself up for Sec. of Commerce, or maybe, if she's extremely lucky and does moderately well in the primaries, VP. I am no fan of hers for all of the obvious reasons, but she is a rocket scientist compared to Bachmann and Palin.

Then why is it exclusively conservatives who use the incorrect term?

Well, not really. The issue is that there are lots and lots of AC devices out there, so what you're doing is converting to a form that is in most common use. If you have surplus power that is free (solar as under discussion), there's no problem, resource-wise, in doing it just that way. Which makes it not very moronic at all. Kind of convenient, actually.

Considerations for a free, non-polluting resource have to be approached with an open mind. The range of consequences is different. They can be quite favorable.

It is MUCH easier to power them off than to build a solar+battery+inverter+separate cirquit[sic] to power them.

Oh, no doubt. But that wasn't what the GP was saying. Also, even though it's easier, it uses up a costly resource when it's on. The solar powered widgets do not. So you save some; the solar system saves all. Food for thought. Gotta figure the ROI. It's not that hard, either. Plus there's the dependability issue. Power fails, your devices keep running... that's nothing to sneer at.

*change* that undermines human plans represents a big challenge.

Not when the change is so slow that you have generations to decide to move away from it, or alter your investments, it isn't. Every generation typically goes into new homes. Somewhere. Eventually, a generation (not this one or any one soon) will go... "y'know honey, instead of moving here in Miami, let's check out Vermont." Or where ever.

And you know what's kind of irritating? I never hear anyone going on about sea level rise mention this little fact: Change is the hottest possible breeding ground for opportunity. Change means employment, undertakings, recovery, rehabilitation, relocation, new methods, new ideas, new crops, new businesses. And so on.

Since you obviously haven't been here for a while, many parts of Florida are underwater at high tide.

But not newly underwater. Sea levels have risen about 200 mm, or about 7.8 inches in the last century (1910 to 2008) (also, the rate of rise hasn't changed much, either -- see linked graph again.) Which time period has to include almost all, or perhaps all, of Florida's sewer infrastructure -- Miami was officially incorporated as a city with a population of just over 300 on July 28, 1896. Fort Lauderdale was incorporated even later -- 1911. This tells us quite handily that region's sewage infrastructure was built during that 7.8 inch rise.

So if Florida's infrastructure is seeing drainage run backwards due to an 8 inch change in levels, that is clearly related to absolutely dismal design and implementation -- not to sea level rise. I mean, good grief. What do you think the design criteria were? "If anything at ALL happens, sewers should overflow?" Please refer to the actual data when making claims. Also: If your public officials have been telling you that this is due to sea level rise, they are lying through their teeth, and you should take them to task for it. Good luck with that.

Florida is fighting that losing battle quietly.

Yes, no doubt. But they aren't fighting with sea level rise. They're fighting with incompetence.

It's a bit like the Japanese and Whaling. Turns out that the whalers operate at a loss, nobody in Japan actually likes whale meat, etc... But as long as they're under outside pressure to end the program, it becomes a matter of face to defend it.

In short, they may have ended the program since then if Snowden hadn't leaked because the program wasn't justifying itself, but now they're having to defend their illegal and unconstitutional actions, thus they 'have' to continue and justify the program in order to avoid saying they made a mistake.

How many other industries have more than $12B in insurance before the government will step in?

I mean, there's no other industry that could cause that much damage in a single incident, is there?

Yeah, we're up to 2 busted nuclear plants in the whole world. All of them were old as hell plants, newer plants survived just fine, and realistically speaking we're being paranoid about the radiation.

They have. It has even fewer deaths per TWh, including Chernobyl and Fukushima, than solar & wind

you can say the drought was exacerbated by record high temperatures

You can say it -- the question is, can you show it? Take a look at the actual data and you will see that although the average is running a little warm, all of 2012, 2013, 2014 and what we've had thus far of 2015 are just about devoid of record temperature excursions.

My understanding is that it is lack of precipitation -- not high temperatures -- that account for California's current problems. Which you can also see on that same page on the bottom graph. The span from March through October is devoid of precipitation. In the background in the darker color, you can see the "normal" (the average) for the region.

Dustbowl, anyone? Much, much worse than California's problems -- and definitely not attributable to "global warming" in any significant way.

Sure, just as soon as the federal government pays them back for the fees it charged while promising to take care of the waste...

Oh, and enjoy how things end up priced as we force this standard on other companies... Many of the pollutants that other companies are releasing don't break down, period.

10M years is a bit long as well - allow reprocessing and such, and you can get rid of 90% of the 'waste' by reusing it, and of the 10% remaining, you only need to keep it 'safe' for about 1-10k years, not the over 100k.

I think my point still applies - get a lamp that's designed for LEDs and comes with them as standard, as opposed to paying even more money for 'adapting' bulbs.

Have you seen the flooding in south Florida over the past few years?

Well, yes, but you really shouldn't bring up the favorable consequences in order to fight Global Warming.

Plagues are natural. Eradicating them is artificial. Saying "changes are not natural" is like saying "warmth in the winter is not natural" and then breaking all the windows in your house on the coldest day of the year. I realize you think "natural" is synonymous with perfect holiness and righteousness, but this is a science topic, so please keep your arguments rational.