This is one of the enduring fallacies of climate change: that temperature increases just shift climate zones a little. We need to stop talking about temperature and start talking about energy and entropy (or better yet, chaos) - the amount of energy associated with a 1 degree C rise in air and/or ocean temperatures is staggering. That energy corresponds to a massive increase in chaotic behavior, which our planet is not well adapted to. While that might mean one or two pleasant summers in Delhi, it could also mean a tropical cyclone, a summer with 55 degree days, or a drought...

Ok, so you don't like the summary, but it's not spam!

I've always found the analogy of currents within warming water or air currents over flames helpful. The more heat, the more active they become. Also, saying "the earth's temperature will be 1deg C warmer" is not as impactful as "the earth's atmosphere increased in energy by 5 Zetta joules (or about 10 times the entire annual energy use of the human race), and that's not including sea/land warming"... Alternatively "a 1deg C increase means that the air above the 1m^2 square you're standing in increased by 10MJ, or the energy in five car batteries."

This is only partially true. In most cases, the government can only do this when you require something from them, such as planning permission. If I was an ISP and Netflix wanted to start using me, I would probably also ask them for some cash upfront for new switches...

What's going on here is that the next town over has a small main street and is pissed off that they are now carrying lots of new cars to the shopping center. Their residents already paid for the roads, but now they want the shopping center to foot the bill. In some ways it is fair, but the original town with the shopping center didn't need this town's permission to build it, and they don't have any legal recourse other than to appeal to a higher level of government. On the other hand, the original town might argue that they need to be compensated for all of the cars crossing from their neighboring city.

The analogy breaks down a bit because the closest comparison from roads to the Internet is to imagine that all of the roads are toll roads, and you pay to drive within a city but everyone lets you drive for free outside the city. The complaint can then be seen as the ISP complaining that they're underpaid because the people in their city are driving to the neighboring city too often.

The real fix is to make the internet a level playing field - ISPs can only charge for net traffic in one direction and must charge all connections at the same rates. If they chose to charge for traffic leaving their network, then if a connection uploads more than it downloads then they owe money. If they choose to zero rate all traffic and only charge people a base rate for the physical connection then that's their choice.

Technically the second, although South Africa only had experimental weapons.

Woosh...

Claiming that is an NIH reference is really disingenuous. That's a PubMed link. The real link is https://onlinelibrary.wiley.co....

Even aliens can't make the "enhance" algorithm work?