Greenwashing is done with signs and advertisements, not with millions of dollars and heavy equipment investments.

The likes of "biofuels" and "renewable" electricity generation can involve vast amounts of money and plant. Yet be useless, even counterproductive, assuming a goal of reducing fossil fuel usage. So the idea that "greenwashing" cannot involve these is false.

The credible way out of the problem of burning fossil fuels is to replace as many energy sources as possible with renewables (wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, etc.).

Wind and solar are not especially credible energy sources. Except for specific niche applications, possibly excluding this one. Geothermal and hydro require rather specific geography with hydro often being opposed by "greenies". With the most effective and most truely "renewable" option being even more strongly opposed by the "greenies".

It's usually easy to tell whether a driver involved in an accident was texting and the penalties can be stiff (including manslaughter or vehicular homicide).

Should there actually be special laws along the lines of "vehicular homicide" especially given that they potentially allow someone to literally "get away with murder".

if you want to save money and take a risk with a cab that doesn't have inspections, why should the government butt in? again, consenting adults not small children that need a nanny to watch over them.

On the other hand there dosn't appear to be much interst in regulating "school runs".

The fact that people aren't in the position to audit their books and look to see that they're in compliance with reasonable safety standards.

Are there no safety standards which would apply to any vehicle on Californian public roads?

The anti-salt propaganda has as much basis as the "wisdom" of drinking eight glasses of water a day. It became a thing everyone "knows" is true without questioning if there is any factual support.

Much the same is true of the various versions of "five a day".

Nobody has ever demonstrated a mechanism for how salt intake causes heart disease. All you ever get is a lot of hand waving and vague statistics collected from people who already have advanced CV disease.

Not just with salt, when it comes to CVD. Dosn't help either that many of the people involved have no excuse for not knowing the difference between a lipoprotein and a steroid either.

Climate models don't even project 10 years into the future well, they work more on 30 year time scales.

So do those from 1984 do a better job than those form 2004 when it comes to matching what we observe to be the case now? No matter how each group of models compare with the other how well do they do in absolute terms?

What about the people with stake in large multinational wind and solar producers claiming we can save ourself with all-renewable society?

Where things start getting really daft is that using wind and solar can easily mean that you need to run fossil fuel plants very inefficiently in order to "balance the grid". Thus it's possible for these to have a huge "carbon footprint". Yet nuclear power tends to be dismissed out of hand by the same people demanding "something must be done".
Similarly it's quite easy to produce "bio fuels" which require more petroleum than "petrol fuels".

There is a very real issue of toxic pollution that gets ignored in the hype over CO2.

A lot of environmental issues tend to get ignored here. Possibly including those which actually have a far greater influence on weather and climate systems.

So, you tell me, is the natural balance of emissions and absorption so precariously balanced that a couple of percentage points will result in catastrophe? Inquiring minds want to know!

If this is the case how can the Earth's climate remained stable for 4+ billion years? Alternativly what can have happened recently, but pre "industrial revolution" to have made it unstable now?

By the way, the answer I get is never supported by anything other than computer models. I know just enough about how computer models are like graphs - you draw the graph you want then plot the points.

Just about all of the climate computer "models" would be better described as "fiction".

and, maybe the Rolling Stones?

Since it's most probably a russian missile, this proves that they have a self-destruct mode that can be activated before they could hit their target.
This implies that the plane shot down by a russian missile in Ukraine was destroyed on purpose, since the missile could have exploded before hitting its target.

The capabilities of thus unknown, but most likely sea or air launched, missile tell you nothing about those of an SA-12.
It also gives no indication if whoever shot MH17 down knew that it was a neutral civilian airliner. Especially since it turns out to be the case that knowing what you are shooting at is one of the most difficult parts of using such a SAM system. (Even more so if all you have is the TELAR.)

That's great, and I use these sites all the time. BUT, the majority of flyers are casual leisure passengers. They are unlikely to figure out which of the dozen 757 configurations Delta offers they are flying on.

Unless the airline starts putting aircraft registration numbers on the bookings you'd need to also check out something like FlightAware to see which planes usually fly the routes in question.
IIRC the most obvious example of an airline with a large fleet of identical aircraft has non reclining seats anyway.

I immediately thought of the 1st episode of the reboot of Battlestar Galactica, where 99.9% of their modern military force was rendered inoperable. No. Thank. You.

The author may have been more thinking of "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan". Yet oddly the concept is not mentioned in "TOS: The Ultimate Computer".

This statement is bogus. 3rd parties cannot sue under copyright law. VLC is developed by multiple parties, some of whom wanted VLC in the app store & others who didn't.

Portraying this as Apple & VLC vs the FSF is a misrepresentation of the situation.