And how do you know you are not there right now?

Biological or not, the same problems would exist at that point. Survival would still be the driving force. Therefore there would be battles for energy and materials. No difference, except for perhaps timeline.

Has there been a wind sustainability study for future use with the climate changing? I mean it's been stated that there will be rain in places where there is no rain now. And rainy places will have drought in the future. So where are the wind models at for the future? I'm sure there are graphs and pretty pictures for us simpletons. And with these studies, by harvesting the wind (slowing it down, redirecting, etc) how does will that affect the ecosystem at large?

Now I'm being a bit facetious, but it should be a study for science. For example, there is x wind on the Earth, you slow down x to y, what are the results? If we are talking about invisible gasses in to the air, that could appear simplistic, but science has proven otherwise. So slowing down the Earth's wind patterns could have long term damaging effects on the Earth. Just as scooping up photons and keeping them from reaching the Earth's surface.

Climate change means temps go up and temps can go down. Drought happens, and heavy rains happen. That is the climate changing for sure.

Don't be surprised when the next ice age hits. Weather is all about change. The question is how quickly humans adapt or not.

Don't think so small. Many folks have agendas. Schools, politicians, scientists, news shows, etc. And said folks will collaborate to ensure continuation of their agenda. Here's a clue......watch where the money flows. (this qualifies for whatever side of the fence you are on).

See how you even try to lead the reader to give credibility to your view? First you say for fact that your statement is science, but give no source. You then lead the reader to your hypothesis that it's all humans that are the exclusive cause for the climate to change. This is subjective science. And that's the problem and gives the ability on both sides to massage the data to suit their needs.

Frankly when it comes to such divisive topics, I always think that the truth is more in the middle of the data floating around.

One tree provides shade in the desert, to cover the floor of the desert, you'd need a forest. But then it wouldn't be a desert anymore.

Great. So all the desert critters will be displaced and in constant shade. And all the predator birds that hunt said critters will starve.

A. You forgot about solar being affected by the highest total of those green house gasses (H2O).
B. Nuclear plants are designed to handle a F5 tornado

The wealthy pay more then their fair share. As does the middle class. Your mortgage interest that you write off on your taxes is considered a tax break. That interest money is gone out of your pocket one way or another. Either to the Govt (fed, state, local) or to an item that is then calculated as a tax break (charity, mortgage, business expense, etc).

This may be more of an over simplification of the process, but it is what it is. The reality is people are the problem. Stop complaining and trying to fight issues you can't change and don't affect you. Put your head down and go to work. And keep working. And keep working. Start at the bottom and make yourself better. Start a business, take a risk for once in your life. For as many wealthy folks that exist, many of them have gone bankrupt one or multiple times. Would you be willing to put that kind of risk in and still go to work? Or quit, start complaining, and looking for hand outs from someone else who worked and sacrificed for their gains?

You are close x0ra. Those activists are doing the best job possible for the oil/NG/coal industry that they can. I'm sure there is some back door funding going on since it supports the elimination of the oil/NG/coal competition.

Agreed. That is where the test has to be equal on all parts. Increase water, and some plants will die and others will thrive. Increase nitrogen and some plants will die and some will thrive. So by increasing CO2 in a feild of certain plants can determine if CO2 increases planet wide that the effect will be predictable? I think not. The key is how the tests were constructed and conducted. I think there needs to be a clearer test for this hypothesis.

Be a denier, or be a believer. If you read this from the source itself, tell me if it makes any scientific sense at all. I believe in science. The problem is there are too many idiots in the mix that confuse actual facts.

http://www.climatecentral.org/...

No. You utilized their assets to build said software, charged them money, and agreed to it. Deal with it. Just because you lacked the vision to see that software making piles of cash, don't blame others because they have bigger vision then you do.

At some point they become discrimination and defeatist in nature to everyone involved with society. But I am also a realist, and understand that at one point there was a need to have these practices in place in the U.S. And I think that they will still exist in some form or another, but not enforced. There are many industries in the US who's work force is not diversified at all or are becoming of one particular background.

  What is a proper percentage of bodies of a particular ethnic background/gender/sexual preference/religious preference is a company to have? Is it guided by local community, state community, country population, or world population?

Frankly, I could care less. This is still the U.S. and if you can't work for someone, go start your own business and fight for your business. Life is not fair. The sooner you accept that and move on, the happier you will be.

Sorry, but discrimination is discrimination. There is no direction. It either takes place or it doesn't. Using the term reverse gives advantage and power to one group over another.

Doesn't that mean we are winning the race for species domination just as every other species on Earth attempts and has attempted to do until resources cause the decline?

The reality is Earth's clock is ticking. All resources need to be exhausted to find a way off of this rock or sustain life in the harsher confines of deep space. Otherwise, what are we really doing with our advantage over all the other species past and present? You want a long term goal for humanity? There it is. Survival of the species beyond the scope of the planet for wence it came.