Where?

There are other radioactive materials than just these two. Sure, you can separate out every radioactive isotope at least to some rather impressive level. But that hasn't been done.

And even if you did do it, you still have to worry about contamination later. For example, it takes an impressive amount of shielding to block cosmic rays. You basically have to dig a big hole in somewhat radioactive earth to get away from that. That leads to several possible sources of radioactive contamination which have to be blocked at considerable additional cost (or at least setting the radioactivity threshold above that point).

But it is a good indication that one can safely add more. As to the rest of your post, look at the error bars of such studies. I bet you'll see no actual evidence of increased mortality for small doses of radiation. Instead you'll see evidence consistent with a wide range of possibilities.

No, by not mentioning something, you are in the act of ignoring it.

Sure. But if we're going to do that, then we need a better argument. Such as knowing enough so that we have good confidence that we're improving things by whatever criteria we have decided matters and are applying.

Oh, it matters as much. Annually, we see very large changes in climate from summer to winter.

Well, if the NSA wasn't there, apparently doing the very important federal task of snooping on us, there wouldn't be public revenue going to those taxes.

I've noticed that you seem to confuse disagreement with lying. Maybe you should work on that.

No offense to us in the US, but we do seem like a bunch of chumps. Maybe a few thousand more hamster wheels like this and someone will start thinking about what the point of a federal government should be.

And I showed that whether it is man-made is quite relevant.

Because you don't mention them. And I didn't "propose", but merely observed.

Sure. But agreeing in the abstract with "some paths have negative effects" or that we should take "optimal paths" while simultaneously implying that there are situations where we should act even when we don't know that our actions will have any positive effect ("whether it's man made is irrelevant to whether we should try to stop it") indicates to me that in practice you aren't seeing this. That's an inherently suboptimal approach with unknown perhaps very negative effects,.

It didn't for the climate changes of the past few million years (alternating between glacial and the warmer interglacial periods). I think the big difference is that we didn't have a sprawling human civilization sprawling across escape routes (as well as ruthless invasive species). We can fix that via wilderness corridors and can always assist by helping such organisms to move. Such activities would be useful even in the absence of significant climate change (as far as species preservation is concerned).

Reverse to what state? The 1850 climate? What is so important about the past climate that we should go back to it at the expense of our other priorities? Keep in mind that we already have an industrial society that we don't want reversed and a population we don't want to kill off. The situation is already irreversible.

You forgot the excluded middle. There are a variety of ways, legal and illegal, that the IRS can evade this even if your assertion is true. Merely claiming that they're a vital bureaucracy pursuing a vital national task may do the trick.

Such as reversal of the law that generates a "need" for the IRS to do that. I see no reason for the US federal government to be involved in health care at all. Keep in mind that US states already have sufficient authority to institute state-wide health care systems of fairly arbitrary scope (such as the Massachusetts version of Obamacare) while the federal level had significant constitutional obstructions against making such policy.

No, because we supposed here that it wasn't mostly man-made.

How? Our assumption means the effects of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is greatly weaker than we currently suppose. What's in our tool box at this point?

And I see repeated use of the phrase "it's too late". It's too late for what?

Then why aren't you considering such effects with respect to proposed mitigation strategies? For example, a possible tool in the box is supposed to be reduction of carbon dioxide emissions via abandoning of a hydrocarbon based transportation system. But currently, that means abandoning a huge amount of infrastructure and knowledge with a rather large negative impact on society.

Sure, down the road, it might not, say because hydrocarbons from fossil fuels and other sources grew expensive enough to obsolete this infrastructure. But that's a huge economic change with large negative consequences for which embracing an early transition seems poorly advised. Especially since it can result in the same "loss of biodiversity in ecosystems, disease prevention, famine prevention" though perhaps with greater effect.

Also, it's worth noting that none of the above problems is particularly reliant on climate change and there are fixes that whether in the presence or absence of climate change that could greatly reduce the problem. Loss of biodiversity is primarily a result of habitat destruction that hasn't almost nothing to do with climate change. It can be partly fixed by dedicating land, particularly corridors to allow movement of species to new biomes (as would be necessary under a significant global warming scenario). Disease and famine prevention is primarily a result of fixing dysfunctional societies - it's not a feature of developed world societies.

Only, if they're more likely to occur than if we choose other paths. That's part of the point of a cost-benefit analysis. You look at the costs and benefits of every choice relative to other choices, not strictly the benefits of the choice you'd like to make versus the costs of the choice you don't want to make.

One of the problems I see here is that climate change is greatly weighted as a concern relative to other, bigger problems of humanity such as poverty, corruption, disease, desertification, overpopulation, etc. There's little consideration of how the proposed solutions for global warming will effect these bigger problems or conversely how not addressing these bigger problems as effectively (due to our skewed priorities) will effect our ability to address global warming.

The current "do nothing" strategy actually has profound effects on the bigger problems. It increases human wealth and higher value of female labor both which are negatively correlated with all of these problems. Conversely, the wealth destruction of a possible AGW strategy could result in increases in these big problems which in turn tend to work against both the global coherence of an AGW strategy (by increasing the relative effect of these problems with respect to AGW issues) and the societies themselves, meaning there is a negative feedback working against the proposed strategy which isn't being considered.

Even if that wealth is going to be destroyed anyway due to a "peak oil" situation, being destroyed in a distant future is less costly than being similarly destroyed today due to economic time value.

And the problem with that is? If they get it right, it's a faster responding market. And if they get it wrong, it's free money for everyone else.

This is a variation of insider trading. Your act of "reaching" is not public knowledge. And HFT programs aren't trying to "rape" the small investor. There's no money in it.

Plus, you get around the "rape" issue via limit orders. That's like only reaching for milk that costs no more than $3.99. So if the program raises the cost of my milk to $4.50, then the milk disappears and I don't grab anything.

No. If it were true, then we'd have never gotten around to building a civilization. Cooperation helps everyone involved. Stock markets are a fairly limited, but very efficient form of cooperation.

I really don't get the point of your arguments. They're not hard to deflate once you have an understanding of how markets work and who's on them.

Further, you're not trying to outwit or outmaneuver HFT and other traders with ridiculous advantages. Instead, you're trying to lend money to relatively honest businesses in exchange for some sort of return, such as a dividend or an increase in the price of the stock.

Well, HFT is legal. But if that weren't so, then it wouldn't be better than insider trading.

Well, what are they doing where they need that kind of speed? If they're outwitting human traders, then latency can be seconds to minutes and they'd still get in ahead of most small time traders.

And "trillions of dollars" "stolen"? Hasn't happened yet. Sounds like you're confusing the real estate crisis with HFT. They aren't the same.

What's the basis for that belief? Sure, if you're speaking of the largest data centers in the world, with rather low margins which cooling costs can cut into, then you have considerable incentive to come up with ways to reduce that. Simultaneously, you have huge economies of scale while simultaneous swamping the local energy providers.

But if you're a small IT department providing a high value product (say, making sure a company's servers work is far more important than shaving dollars off of PUE), then the incentive to play the PUE game isn't there. Nor are the benefits.

If you're in an urban environment, then the infrastructure is there to provide a lot of cheap megawatts - at least outside of California which is special.

What is an "assault weapon"? Most such "assault weapons" are cosmetic variations of normal semi-automatic rifles. I think it'd help if the people advocating gun control showed some understanding, such as the near trivial differences between a hunting rifle and an "assault weapon".

I personally don't see a problem with widespread ownership of military weaponry. It's still illegal to commit murder.

Also as the other replier noted, "regulated" in the UK sense, means it is very difficult to have available a firearm for self-defense.

Why? We stopped aping UK law a couple of centuries ago.