I, for one, welcome our new Foxconn overlords.

Average temperatures will probably rise a very small amount. CO2 causes a small increase. The computer models presume this small amount will be multiplied several times over by strong positive feedback. But the feedback amount and direction has yet to be empirically proven.

The relative stability of the climate, despite numerous past disruptions, argues against strong positive feedback. If there were strong positive feedback, past disruptions would have caused the climate to get apocalyptically hot, like the alarmists claim the current disruption will do. Warm-climate-doomsday didn't happen then, why will it happen now?

No one can prove temperatures will rise in the future. Nothing about the future can be proven until it happens and you measure it. Proof isn't the standard for discussions about predictions from computer models.

It's not whether it's happening, it's whether it's beneficial, neutral, a small problem, or a large problem. If it's not a large problem, why should we do anything?

And even if they had not, we still couldn't do anything very significant because we're only one country out of more than 200, with less than 5% of the world's population. And the US per capita carbon emissions have been dropping while per capita carbon emissions in India and China, countries which together have about 8x our population, have been rising fast.

We could definitely have a real discussion if it weren't always "We hate oil companies. We're all going to die!!!" vs. "It's 100% phony.". But that still wouldn't lead to any significant action, because all significant actions are extremely severe, and any action that is even remotely affordable is insignificant.

So what if humans impact the environment? Environmental righteousness is not science.

Alarmism is not fact. Alarmism is not science.

Familiarity with "the greenhouse effect" does not mean you have to believe the results of climate models or the doomsday predictions of political activists.

Rich farmers and ranchers already get huge government subsidies. Why should we pay them any more at all?

If farmers need honeybees, they will pay bee keepers for them. If there's a shortage of bees, farmers will pay more. Seeking profit, bee keepers will expand their hives to produce more bees.

No government meddling and no government money is needed. Let some rich guys pay their own money to solve their own problems for once.

Meanwhile, in third-world countries, poor people still cook meals. Even isolated jungle tribes can cook a meal. I guess no one taught them it's easier to be a victim and make excuses.

Also cheap: eggs, whole chickens, flour, other basic ingredients. If you cook, you can eat lots of healthy mostly-unprocessed food for very little money. And exercise is free.

Exactly. Change it to "100 non-profits chosen at random from a list of all non-profits listed in the city" and the corruption problem is mostly solved -- though you still have rate-payers implicitly subsidizing service for random non-profits for some unknown reason.

That's not really much different. In general, governments shouldn't be negotiating for free service for "some".

Franchise fee and PEG fee (which was waived) are 8% total. That's hardly negligible. And free service for "some" non-profits? How is it legitimate to tell a business they must give freebies to "some" people (surely not friends of city officials) in order to do business?

Fewer government-imposed barriers and artificial costs should mean more choices for internet service. More choices would be good.

Would you rather have more choices for internet providers or more money in your city's treasury? I'll take more choices for internet providers. Because I'm not on the city payroll.

It's amazing that these governments still get away with this stuff. If you don't have several choices for internet providers in your location, maybe it's because no one wants to pay a "franchise fee" and a "PEG fee" and give away free service to your city government officials' friends. Or maybe it's because your local city council hasn't "approved" it.

Where is that? If you're not talking about the US, then everything you've said is 100% useless.

The US has a unique culture with unique problems. Big government can work in a largely homogeneous society, where there exists broad agreement on some cultural norms, a genuinely independent press, and some other unifying virtues. That's not the US. The US can't become Switzerland or Norway or Germany or Denmark. Pretending we can is a stupid waste of everyone's time.

Small government works in the US. Big Government does not.