Another good point. I would make that #3. And that brings up:

(4) Safety is not the end goal of all existence. You cannot make everything 100% safe without taking all the meaning and enjoyment out of life.

Your refrigerator will still have expired chicken in it.

Back To The Future will be the most-watched movie of all time.

Barack Obama will still be a dick-tator.

Apple will be convicted multiple times of engaging in anti-competitive business practices. Microsoft will, too, but less often than before.

Linux will be 40% or more of the desktop OS market, and 70% of handhelds.

Bugs Bunny will be appointed Secretary of State.

But there * IS * something wrong with 40-year-old patents.

Clarification:

There are 2 big issues here that the politicians need to start considering, much more than they have been:

(1) The fact that a certain technology CAN be used, and might even represent monetary savings, is largely a different question that whether it SHOULD be used.

(2) That improved technology works both ways: not only do you have the ability to move surveillance to the sky, but also: civilians have drastically improved ability to bring it down. And strong motivation to do so.

What is up these politician's asses? Besides their heads, I mean.

This isn't a war. But some of the politicians seem dead set on making it one.

Hint, politicians: today it is not only quite possible, but not even that difficult to make a drone-killing missile in one's basement, complete with propeller- or heat-seeking electronics. And they'd never see it coming. ("Missile" might be misleading: it might be simpler and cheaper to make a self-guided ballistic projectile.)

I'm not suggesting that I would do that. I don't even have a basement. But you can count on the fact that somebody would.

That's probably true, but it's also a different argument.

Self-correction:

They did in fact CLAIM that it was true, but they make it very clear that the claim is not based on their actual data, but rather on their initial assumtion: that AGW is fact.

The effect is the same: the study does not in fact indicate what you say. It merely shows a correlation. The data does not support the conclusion that either "side" is right or wrong.

No, they didn't. You are both wrong.

What they said was that the results of education were correlated with political leanings. They did not show cause-effect.

For example, for all we know, the "right-wingers" who are uneducated might just be incorrect, and the educated "right-wingers" correct. And then the "left-wingers" who are uneducated would be incorrect, and when educated become even more incorrect.

I am not claiming that this is so! I am merely pointing out that this study does not indicate (or even claim) otherwise. It merely shows correlation. Any cause and effect is purely in your own mind, at this point.

I really hate to have to bring up the "correlation does not equal causation" argument here on Slashdot, but that is precisely the issue here. By expressing these unfounded conclusions you force my hand.

I agree with you for the most part, but just one bone to pick:

No, the costs are not opinion. They are known. And the costs of actually making a significant difference, assuming that the AGW models are correct, are huge.

No, the costs are not opinion at all. Whether to spend them is where evaluation and opinion come in.

In order to increase O2 concentration by the same amount, you would have to have an atmosphere that was many, many times greater than 100% oxygen.

And 100% oxygen will kill you pretty damned quick, too. So your argument is nonsense.