...examples of leading climate researchers from Stanford, UC Berkeley, and Yale making statements like "by 2010, New York City will be underwater"
What "leading climate researchers" said this? Citations needed. Did you hear this on Fox News, or are you just making it up?
Rising CO2 levels and climate change are politically controversial only because the fossil carbon industry hired a bunch of PR firms to sow public doubt. Who needs science, when industry PR is gospel?
What we have is only the governmental mandate that an ISP with a local monopoly of lines has to offer capacity on the last mile to other ISPs in a non-discriminatory manner. That's all. Thus about every ISP is potentially able to offer his product everywhere. If he is not present with its own lines, they can be rented from the local monopolist or quasi-monopolist. Problem solved.
Agreed the verboseness argument is bogus, otherwise the whole debate would consist of COBOL people on one side, and APL people on the other. They are at opposite ends of the spectrum of verboseness, and both languages largely suck, but for different reasons.
What happens if you use the --verbose command-line option with an APL program?
Granted, the option affects the output at runtime, while APL is the language the program is coded in -- I'm not that confused. But it got me to wondering.
I'm not sure what the point is here. Could it be:
- Some chemicals with unfamiliar-sounding names are harmless, therefore we should assume that all are?
- Warning labels about chemical hazards are stupid, because the public should be sufficiently educated about chemistry and toxicology to know if a compound is dangerous by it's name alone?
- Unfamiliar substances should be assumed to be safe unless we know otherwise with certainty?
Furthermore, if you use the name "di-hydrogen monoxide" for water, I'm going to assume you've had no chemistry beyond high school. No chemist would say "monosilicon dioxide" for quartz (SiO2) or "tri-iron tetra-oxide" for Fe3O4, for example. So if you're ridiculing people for not recognizing "dihydrogen monoxide", you're also looking like an noob to people who know better.
Vanity < Logic after all
Logic isn't one of the seven deadly sins.
But in general, getting more sheer power out of a certain engine size or configuration is not so much of an engineering problem (e.g. just add lots of chargers, and don't forget the cooling). It's more of a design decision if you want to have better all day behaviour and more stability under load, or if you want more impressive data sheet numbers. You surely can tune the Bugatti W16 to put out 1300 or 1400 hp and still being street legal, but what's the point? Koenigsegg decided to go a more extreme route, getting more power out of their engine, knowing well that their cars won't be used in the daily commute anyway.
So the Earth surface is indeed getting warmer since the times we started to record it, which goes back in some regions to the 18th century. If the average temperature of the Earth's surface is getting warmer (which it does at least since we started to measure it), and if it is happening globally, there is good reason to call it Global Warming.
That there can be local warming that is even larger, or that there are locations which are colder on average now than they were when we started to record temperatures, is quite possible. The region I live in has gotten 2 K warmer on average since the begin of the records (which were somewhere around 1760, thus encompassing the whole era of Industrialization), much larger than the 0.7 K on average we measure globally. So there surely are regions which warmed less than 0.7 K on average.
This is a fact you can read at NOAA or whatever organisations keep record of local and global temperatures.
Where the theorizing starts is if this trend continues in the future, and what causes the Global Warming. But the single fact that the Earth's surface got warmer globally and on average is no hypothesis, is a fact we have measurements of.