Since broadcasting is pretty much a Federal power in Canada, I'm not sure, whatever the other flaws in Ontario's plans, whether they even have the constitutional right to do it.

In modern operating systems, the differences are in optimizations. A desktop might want to have more ticks dedicated towards foreground GUI apps (though I'm not even sure that matters is the age of multicore processors with gigs of RAM), whereas a server might want to dedicate more resources to I/O. But in most cases, at least with any software and Linux distro I've seen in the last decade, much of that can be accomplished by altering kernel and daemon parameters.

Windows does the same thing. The base kernel for Windows 8 and Server 2012 is the same; and it's licensing-triggered settings that determine specific behaviors. In an age of cheap storage costs, cheap RAM and fast processors, why in the hell would you want to ship multiple kernels/ What possible advantage would it gain, when you can just simply determine, either as an administrator, or based on licensing, the fine tuning of kernel parameters?

So many of the kernel's functions and optimizations can be altered now, there strikes me as no reason to ship entirely different kernels. Who does that any more? Even Windows kernels are largely the same, with optimizations triggered either by the registry or by the edition.

So 1) Artificial scarcity of carbon based fuel
2) Redistribution of wealth
3) Let the market deal with the extra government regulations

Yes extremely disturbing that people can only be in one of three political categories... And disturbing that it looks so smooth and regular that either they had a ridiculously large sample size or they made up the data.

Exactly. Warming may be happening and CO2 emissions may be making it worse. But you can't scientifically say that we should cut carbon emissions, tax carbon, use ethanol, subsidize electric vehicles, etc.

While I am sure the most vocal "deniers" and those with the most camera time are the crackpots who say the earth isn't getting warmer. However, there are many legitimate reasons to doubt how much of the observed warming is caused by humans and how much damage might occur in the future because of the human caused portion of the warming.

The climate is changing (Has the climate ever been constant?)
The current trend is warming (Was it warming before humans started affecting climate?)
It appears that the warming is increasing (How much is due to human causes?)
The warming will likely cause damage to human settlements (Is it more cost effective to move the humans? How catastrophic will it be? Are there potential benefits that might offset the damage to civilization? Might we be better off on a warmer planet?)

The main points are agreed upon my most rational people, the questions in parentheses are the ones that get glossed over. They are the assumptions based on the data that all of the money and the "carbon is pollution" politics that affect all our lives.

And your understanding is based exactly on what?

Christ, your position is little better than nilihism. Accepting, for instance, that several languages spoken in Eurasia are descended from a proto-Indo European language is not an article of faith, even if I don't have the linguistics skills to evaluate every single language that sits within that grouping.

You have any citations that aren't from lunatics?

What's needed is moving away from energy produced by fossil fuels. I'm asking all you who seem to reject AGW because the solutions, in your view, are "authoritarian", how you will deal with it? So, what tools would you bring to bear?

Because climatologists have never thought of looking at climate history...

The ignorance and arrogance in your poster is awe-inspiring. It's as if you have no fucking idea what climatologists base their theories on, and yet have decided they are wrong.

There wasn't a learned man in Europe who believed the Earth was flat. It may have persisted much longer in China, but in Europe and among Arab geographers, there was no one who seriously believed in the flat Earth. The Greeks had figured that out nearly 2000 years before Columbus ever accidentally ran into the Americas on his way to China.

Picking the "20 years of no warming" is simply cherry picking, and ignoring a time period 15 times longer that does show warming.

Ah yes, when your ideology runs up against science, invent cabals of evil scientists trying to fuck you over.

How are you any different than a Creationist?