The world wide 1% yes. The US 1% no.
World Wide the 1% makes over $33,000

Refrigeration doesn't do much with produce. Other than keeping it cold.
I usually keep my fruit un-refrigerated. It tastes better and lasts just as long.

Yes because he is an astrophysicist, it makes him qualified to be an expert on all fields, like economics.

This XKCD Applies

I do find it interesting how many Atheists are working very hard to formalize Atheism. Creating a more rigid structure that contains many of the trappings of Religions.

Because most of the Evils done by non-Athiests isn't because the person Believes in some sort of being that cannot be proven, but because they group together, formalize their beliefs and create a rigid structure that creates an us vs them mentality.

There are forming a lot of different sects of Atheism. Some examples.
1. The I don't think there is a god, but I am open to the possibility, however there isn't any proof.
2. The idea of a god scares me, so I will choose not to believe.
3. I don't believe in a god, however we should respect the people who they do, as there isn't any proof that god doesn't exist either.
4. I don't believe in a god, and don't respect people who do because they don't have the same beliefs that I do.
5. I don't know if I believe in a god or not, but the idea of a god makes me angry so I will not believe....

There are a lot of different types out there. And there will be a lot of debating saying one isn't atheist enough to call themselves an atheist.

Does it do Color?

Or you know, perhaps there are things like actually testing to make sure the patch works across their product lines. Or evaluating the Risk of the Flaw, and decide to put it in the next update, vs just keep on patching over and over again.

I remember back when Microsoft started its security initiative back after XP was released. There were a lot of security updates and often they would end up breaking more stuff then it fixed. Because they didn't spend the time testing it.

I get amused when people do this. Your "we/I" thing. I say something you don't like, so you extrapolate my views on the situation. You assume that I don't believe that humans are causing climate change. You'll notice I said nothing on the issue. I do that on purpose. My views as to the veracity of the science really aren't relevant. I am talking about the situation of what is being claimed and what to do about it.

However you take this somewhat religious point of view in that I argued something you didn't like, so I'm a heretic, an unbelieve, clearly I reject everything, I'm anti-science! You are assuming facts not in evidence.

I'm just pointing out one (of a number) of issues with getting widespread action on the issue: If we are past a tipping point, where reductions in emissions will not do much (and there are models that show this), then the solutions that are based around that are not useful.

I have a pretty good understanding of economics and one of the things I quite well understand is that setting up a system where rich countries give more money to poor countries, which would be the big effect of cap and trade, isn't going to help reduce emissions. If anything, it'll raise them since the poor countries will be able to develop their industry and then start using more fossil fuels themselves. You would likely find that many who thought the agreement was good when they were getting money would decide to withdraw later when it suited them.

If cleaner energy is the desired result and economics are the method you wish to use, then subsidies for R&D are the way to go. Taxes on coal to support nuclear, taxes on fossil fuels to support biofuels, that kind of thing. You pour money in to developing better biofuel technology or the like, and money in to getting the process up to the point where it is cheap, that will do something. Just shuffling money around country to country will accomplish nothing.

In terms of climate models ok, if you don't like that assertion then which models do you like, and why are those ones correct? What you have to realize is that there are a lot of climate models out there and their predictions are not consistent. They do not agree on how much warming, how fast, and what effect changes will have. So, if there's a correct one, then let's hear it, and evidence as to why that one is correct. If not, well that was relating back to my original point.

You seem to think that this is an argument claiming against climate change. It's not, I try to not interject my personal opinion at all in to these things. Rather this is talking about one of the problems relating taking any wide scale action. The actions that largely seem to be proposed will not do much to actually deal with the issue and, if we are indeed past a tipping point, be worse than useless (since they'd take up resources that should be spent in other ways).

I think a big problem is that people confuse and oversimplify the climate change argument. They think "There is a consensus, the science is settled, thus there is only one course of action we can take!" Nope, rather you can break it down in to four rough levels:

1) The fact of global warming, that the average surface temperature is rising outside of known cycles. This is an observation, a measurement. While it is a complex one, it is not really arguable unless you can find a flaw in the measurements or calculations.

2) The theory of global warming, in particular that the prime or exclusive cause of the warming is an increase in atmospheric CO2 (which is quite easy to measure) cause by human emissions. It provides an explanation for the causality of the observations we've made. As with all theories, you can debate this if you can find evidence that it is incomplete, or contradictory evidence or the like. Also that is a fairly general overview, there are researchers working on much more specific, predictive, versions that would explain more precisely the change in temperature with a given change in atmospheric CO2.

3) The assertion or judgement that this is a net bad thing for humanity. This is based on other theories and models as to what will happen if the temperature increase continues. You can then evaluate those and decide if it is a good or bad thing overall (everything has costs and benefits). For that matter two people could agree on the outcome, but disagree on the judgement of if it is good.

4) The politics or policy of what to do about it. This is the kind of thing there can be a lot of disagreement on, even if you agree on all other points. There's no "right" here. It is all about what seems to be the most beneficial to spend resources on.

The problem is that people seem to do sufficient reading to be convinced that #1 is true, or that #1 and #2 are true, and then decide that means you have to go all the way to the end, and that whatever their given source advocates for #4 is the One True Way(tm) and you are anti-science if you don't buy in.

That isn't how it works.

Is that it is just one of shuffling around who produces what. Now this may well work, if all we need to do is maintain our level of emissions or decrease them. However if we are past a tipping point, where nothing short of a massive reduction (and perhaps not even that) in emissions will stop the warming then it does no good.

What I was talking about with proposals and so on was things outside of "emit less CO2" or "here are way to try and emit less CO2". The reason is this is assuming that we are indeed past a tipping point, as some climate researchers claim. In that case, the issue of emissions is not one to concentrate on, but rather on how to either prevent the change via other means, prepare ourselves to deal with the change, or some of both.

We should all be happy to go back to the pre-industrial ages. Sure it means the vast majority of humans will have to die off, and the ones that live will have much shorter, harder, lives but hey, it would be good for the planet (depending on how you define good)! As such all of us should be happy, no honoured to do that. Excepting for professors, of course. They advance knowledge so they clearly need to be allowed to keep all of their modern conveniences. But the rest of us, back to the dark ages!

That is what always amuses me about the "industrial society is bad!" types is I've never seen any of them practice what they preach. None of them go and live in the wilderness, off the land, eschewing all modern technology except for the rare times they come to give a talk on it. Heck none of them even go back to Amish/Mennonite levels of technology. They live modern lives, enjoying all the conveniences, and then say others shouldn't.

How about, try it first, then see if maybe there's a reason we like all this new stuff?

That means we'd be down to around 45% of current levels by 2050. That's a big reduction. Now probably doable and worth trying, but you'd want to be fairly certain that it would, indeed, fix the problem if you are going to make the tradeoffs necessary to do so. You wouldn't want to spend a bunch on a big change to make all this happen only to find out no, sorry, but that isn't in fact going to help.

There's the issue of what to do. At the moment, there seems to be a lot of division and non-answers on that. If climate models are correct, a leveling off or small reduction in emissions won't do anything to help. Even massive cuts might not do the trick. Ok well going back to the pre-industrial era isn't an option, though some green groups do like the idea. That would entail a massive loss of life and loss of quality of life. So no go there.

Likewise carbon credits, carbon exchanges, that kind of shit won't do anything. Playing money games and shuffling things around on spreadsheets does not enact any kind of real change. While economic incentives can help move things in certain directions, this won't really do that much and mostly will serve to enrich those that play the exchanges (see Wall Street).

Ok so, we'll need something else. Some geoengineering to change what is happening, or we'll need to do R&D on solutions not to change what is happening, but to survive and adapt to the changes that are going to happen. So what are those then? What are the proposals, what do they cost, what are the risks, the benefits, etc, etc? Also where are the green groups pushing for them, advocating for it?

Right now, it seems to be not just that there are people who do not believe that climate change is real, or is a problem (or a big enough problem to warrant large scale action), but there seems to be little in the way of solutions from those that do believe. "Just cut emissions," does not seem to be a solution that will be useful. "Cap and trade," seems to just maintain the status quo, while funneling money around to poorer countries. None of the popular solution with the climate change advocates seem to be one that would actually deal with the issue.

Is it such a surprise then that politicians don't seem to want to act on it?

I mean suppose I tell you that you have a real problem with your house, it is slowly deteriorating towards a collapse. I am able to prove this to your satisfaction, and I am able to show you that the reason is related to water use. Any time you run water though your pipes, it moves things further along. Also, as best as I can tell, even if you stopped running water entirely, you are already past the point where you can save it, it WILL collapse, all you can do is slow it.

However as solutions, I propose you just try and use less water. Maybe crap in a bucket and dump it outside instead of using your toilet. I also propose you "cap and trade" your usage, you don't actually have to decrease the amount you use, but you just pay your neighbours when you use over a certain amount. None of my solutions involve fixing the problem, or rebuilding, or reinforcing, just trying to prolong things and/or shuffling funds around.

Are you going to do what I suggest? Or are you going to ignore me?

That's one of the real problems I see is that the solutions climate change advocates seem to put forward aren't useful solutions by their own models. If we are already past a tipping point where even drastic emissions cuts won't help, well then we need to stop worrying about emissions and start worrying about either how to geoengineer a change, or how to simply deal with the changes that are coming.

It's not about morality it is that scientists can't get laid.

You do realize the Romans had a long history as an elected republic before it became an empire.

If you believe magic sky daddy is watching you all the time, you do.