If you read the news from Europe these days, they seem to be doing exactly that.

Restructuring the grid to accommodate renewables ("smart grid" design) involves installing new meters that continuously send rich information about your power usage and which can control start and stop times for your large appliances. Sorry, but the flat-earth lobby has already decided we can't have those smart meters.

No, use your Bitcoin mining rig to toast bread and cook rice while in operation.

We don't want to send nuclear waste anywhere. The long-term radiation in it represents reusable, unburned fuel.

Hydro, the only baseload renewable, renders hundreds of square miles uninhabitable when operating normally.

You mean 'falsifiable': when a scientist publishes a hypothesis, the standard procedure is to describe what observations might support that hypothesis and which could call it into question. This guides scientific peers in designing experiments to test the hypothesis.

The problem here is that now that AGW has gone political, the rules of politics, not science, apply. The Church of Warminetics claims that all weather phenomena support their hypothesis. Question this, and they'll demand that your credentials be yanked and (the latest tactic) sue your ass off.

More importantly, how would the absence of humans cut down all the methane being belched by plant decay. Every peat bog, marsh, swamp and flourishing rainforest contributes some.

If you put a straw man on a slippery slope, do you get adobe bricks that are so convenient for making mixed metaphors?

And what if someone rootkits the device? Would she suddenly start having dozens of children?

Of course. But if a political fanatic movement to take us back to the stone age exists, it's easy for them to manipulate the bureaucracy to express their own motives. To see what I mean, contrast the nuclear industry and how it's regulated with commercial aviation and how it's regulated.

Enjoy using your million-dollar taxi medallion as a coaster from now on.

A whole rant in "response" to a post in which I made no assertions about the validity of AGW. All I said was that it has become a political pet project of the left, like man-hating feminocracy. Just as any criticism of the latter is "rape culture," any criticism of AGW is called "denialism."

I'm personally neutral on AGW, because I trust the scientific process to eventually come up with the truth on Arrhenius' venerable hypothesis.The outcome will be either:

1. AGW will turn out to be nonexistent or (more likely) overhyped as just one cause of climate change among many natural ones. We will get some melting ice here and there and some shifting of weather patterns, but mankind will survive. Since those who politicized the problem insist that only their favorite doomsday scenario is the only valid one, the left will lose all credibility at making scientific pronouncements. Nobody will ever listen to you again. Your heads explode.
OR...
2. AGW will be proven out, and will be as apocalyptic as you claim. We will have to immediately stop using fossil fuel and rebuild the world's baseload power in nuclear, including in Germany. We will also have to geoengineer away existing CO2 by seeding millions of square miles of open ocean with iron to promote algal blooms, which will in dying carry large amounts of carbon with them to abyssal depths. Your heads explode.

Nuclear is not competitive in places that have bureaucracy, and where lawyers are powerful. This is why the impending big buildout is taking place in China.

...because of the lack of concern an automaton has with penis size. In those long upgrades where trucks are grinding slowly up the hill, we will no longer have to sit behind that 20 mph truck ignoring the 'Trucks use right lane' signage in vainly attempting to get past the 19.5 mph truck operating in the designated lane.