Well. Calling a document that has been produced by the top scientists in a particular area (without being paid for it) 'pseudo science' because you don't like the conclusions is not science.

BTW there is also a full version of the report which refers to the full version of the underlying reports of the 3 workgroups which in their turn refer to the underlying scientific articles. But if the first didn't convince you I have little doubt that you will categorize the rest as 'pseudo-science' too.

All this can be found in the IPCC reports (link). They have a section "For policy makers" which explains in laymens terms exactly (with probabilities and all) what will happen most likely, how big the risks are (and how certain we are of these risks) and what is the best course of action (and why). And yes doing nothing is more costly (damage to argriculture, building higher dikes, more storms, more deseases, people on the run) than actually doing something about it.
So, there you have it. All your questions answerd...by science.

I'm not an American, so I don't know the details. But if you are talking about making sure that everyone has healthcare insurance, that seems simply common sense. Because in healthcare there is no choice. If someone gets ill it's better to do something about it sooner than later. If you wait till later it will get much worse (life threatening) at which moment the medical costs will be much higher. And those costs need to be paid too.
So by making sure everyone has access to healthcare all the time you save everyone a big bunch of money! Don't believe me? Compare the amounts the US is spending on healthcare per gross domestic product compared to other developed coutries (tip: it's much higher) Link to WHO.
And that while all this money is used to pamper a few very rich on one hand and to perform the basic life threatening procedures on the rest.

Let's hope not. The ITER project (link for which this simulation is intended, is planning to have first plasma in 2020. Which means that the simulation, when run in 2018, will be just about in time for making last ajustments in the steering of the magnes and other anti EMP measures that are in place.

To me this seems like a classic case of a big player playing a game of extorsion with a small supplier.
It's as old as the street. Typical example: big retail player (think Wall Mart) says to small supplier: OK this is your big break. You can start delivering your product (say canned beans) to us. The initial order will be around 100 tons/month at 5c per kilo. The small supplier can't believe his luck and starts investing in its production facilities massively to be able to cope with the enourmous volumes.
As they are nearing the delivering time big player says: wait. We need actually 500 tons but only at 3,5c per kilo.
The supplier has 2 choices: comply but the price will never cover the extra investments for the even higher volumes. Or not comply and that means immediate bankrupcy.
Of cource in this case the big player has made a mistake. The idea is to make demands that are feasable.

So in my opinion it's Microsoft being ruthless and stupid all over again like in good old times...

Ok. Then I have misread you. Your first post seemed to suggest that we shouldn't do anything about climate change because it would never work (and reading it back I see some nuance but it still strikes me as such).

The idea that a worldwide CO2 taks could be forced certainly appeals to me. I do not, however, share your revulsion for using CO2 numbers from governments. In fact since CO2 doesn't stop at the borders it will hard to make a model that accurately calculates the CO2 produced in a country (Belgium, e.g. where I live is only about 250 miles from one end to the other and it has the German Ruhr Industrial site, one of the biggers industry concentrations in Europe, close by).

And last but no least: I don't think I ignore the facts around global warming and I am in favor of any measure that could counteract it. Just to be clear: I think we SHOULD make a CO2 taks, that we HAVE to invest in solar and wind power and we MUST massively invest in fusion power. In my Original post I was being sarcastic...

From the IPCC website "Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. IPCC aims to reflect a range of views and expertise. The Secretariat coordinates all the IPCC work and liaises with Governments. It is supported by WMO and UNEP and hosted at WMO headquarters in Geneva"

So they are not taxpayer-funded...

Firstly: that's not true. Even though China has a much higher population than the US, the emissions per person in the US are that much higher that the US emits almost as much CO2 as China.

Secondly: The US, as one of the countries with the highest emissions should lead the efforst instead of standing back (or even blocking agreements).

Last but not least: you seem to say: I know climate change is real, I know we caused it. I jus't can't be bothered to actually do something about it. Because that may involve CO2 taxes (OH NO!!), or investing in Solar and Wind power (UGH) or even massively investing in fusion (e.g. the Iter project) (!!!!!)

No. Let's just keep going as we are today. I prefer to close my eyes. When things go wrong we 'll just hope for the best...

IPCC Synthesis report (link) P.4 (very first chapter): "Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence), with only about 1% stored in the atmosphere. "

So there IS an increased energy storage in the climate system according the IPCC. Which stands to reason: temprature increase (where before there was none) without a higher energy absorbtion is termodynamically nonsense.

Remember this Synthesis report (Summary for Policymakers

It's a 30 page document that is a simple and clear exposé of the current state of climate science on global warming. You can read what the current observations on climate change are, what it's causes are, how this will affect us, what the risks are, how we can mitigate these risks.

On every statement there is a confidence level and every statement refers to a longer more elaborate report that explains the science behind it in more detail. And if that is not enough: this second report (about 100 pages) refers to the reports of the different workgroups (physical evidence, impact of climate change and how to mitigate the impact). These reports of those workgroups are often more than 1000 pages and refer directly to actual publications and scientific studies.

So either you read the first part and you are convinced, or keep reading...

What makes you think that the BBC or anybody else can tell Jeremy Clarkson what to do?

All jokes aside: people who mess up their life (if all this information is actually correct) and then start on other people's lives must be stopped. Immediately.

Well, I don't know about everyboldy else. But in my case this is certainly false.

I love top gear and Jeremy Clarckson is the heart of it. That being said it was clear to me that he was an asshole and that the success of the show had only made it worse.

One should separate fact and fiction. The presenter from the human being: presenter: suberb, definitely has 'it'; human being: is he really??

This seems a bit extreme to me. I think the execise part is the poster story is actually the most important part.
After all: you live years taking in more calories than you need without growing fat. So clearly your body has a mechanism to regulate how much of the intake is converted to fat. It seems that exercise and a healty lifestyle keep this mechanism healty too.

So, I wouldn't go too extreme on the food part and just make sure you live, eat and sport healthyly.

Just my 2 cents....

I hope you realise that in most european countries (and also Finland afaik) this is exactly what happens. The fines go the the national/federal government and gets thus redistributed. Only not specifically to those with a vehicle insured.
The point is that mostly fines are not a means to generate revenues nor for the police force, nor for the communities.
Of course people tend to be creative. In Belgium e.g. they do not issue parking fines (which go to the federal government) but give you a 'default' parking ticket (3x more expensive than the normal tariff). But since it is a parking ticket and not a fine the money goes to the community.

That's the point of the article. The majority of suicide attempts are not determined. Rather they are a 'spur of the moment' 'I've had enough' type of knee jerk reaction to things that may or may not be serious. The idea is that when you can stop them at that moment, the person may come to his/her senses and either seek help (serious problem) or go on with his/her life (no serious problem).
There is often no reason why this person could not live on happily.
Mind you: I'm not talking about people that have serious psychological problems and are suicidal. That's another case altogether that is not fixed by a fence on a bridge.