only about 1 trillion tons of carbon can be burned and the resulting gas spewed into the atmosphere. Just over half that amount has already been emitted since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and at current rates of energy consumption, the trillionth ton will be released around 2040
Do they honestly believe there is some total quantity of emissions that can be tolerated? I mean as opposed to a rate of emissions - like annually. We know that the system recycles carbon taking it out of the atmosphere, and we know that the rate it's removed increases as the concentration increases. So if we assume there is a limit, it should be on the rate of carbon emissions and not the total emitted over time.
These guys are looking dumber all the time.
It is significant because it points to the very real possibility that, over the next several generations, the overall effect of climate change will be positive for humankind and the planet.
My stance on this issue has been vindicated - for today and until some other poor research indicates something different. May be a month, perhaps a year, but they will eventually change their mind again. That's the one thing for certain in "climate science".
That takes money and balls, two (three?) things you obviously lack.
Ouch. Living up to the stereotype I see!
You're silly if you think the government doesn't already have your fingerprint.
How so? I know there have been efforts to fingerprint children with some lame claims about being useful to "save the children" but it's not mandatory. Or do they print them at birth these days?
Others may have a successful life already but they don't think in terms of "me" and "my" but in terms of humanity and its long-term goals over several generations.
While I agree with some of your statements, this one seems false. If someone was truly concerned about the long-term prospects of humanity I doubt they would conclude the best thing for them to do is die in one of the first colonies on mars. Realizing their rarity, I should thing they'd wait until a functional colony is established and only THEN try to have some kind of influence on its development.
Unless Google is going to devise a crypto system they don't have any access to the keys, this is meaningless. Because when those government agencies can walk in the door with a secret warrant and demand the keys, there is nothing Google can do. The US lawmakers have essentially made crypto in America irrelevant when any party knows the keys.
You mean "any third party". For peoples communication to be "secure" they need to keep a private key and others need to use their public key to send data. This of course blocks Google from reading it as well. This is a problem for Google because they like to have the machines read your email to build a profile for targeted advertising. Using secure crypto not only blocks governments, it blocks Google. Unless their plan is as you suggest where Google has the keys, in which case you are correct that it does nothing to prevent spying.
It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do. -- Jerome Klapka Jerome