Focussing on a single argument, even if I could argue on others:
2) crops grow better
Most food crops are harvested between 30th and 50th latitude too. Around the 23th latitude (both north and south) you have either large deserts, where nothing grows, or you have the rain forests, which don't have any meaningful soils to put food crops on.
Pretty much naive picture here. First of all, this should be weighted by the amount of land available for the considered latitudes. Second, desertification has many causes which are not related to the temperature itself. For exemple, the Himalayas prevent clouds from the Indian Ocean to reach Tibet on the other side creating large dry areas and deserts. To summarize, your arguments aren't any better than the points you are trying to defeat.
Yes because 'programmers' never make mistakes, right?
These aren't mistakes, they are encoding the messages rather than encrypting them using a public encoding scheme (anyway, a private encoding scheme wouldn't be better). So, they did actually think about the security, but due to incompetence in the field, they pick an encoding scheme to secure the communication. That's not the first time I have seen such a thing. Some coders believe because they cannot read the message it is encrypted.
By working out formulas to integrate the different sets of information and thereby track one-second-resolution drive cycles, the MIT researchers were able to demonstrate that the daily energy requirements of some 90 percent of personal cars on the road in the U.S. could be met by today's EVs, with their current ranges, at an overall cost to their owners -- including both purchase and operating costs -- that would be no greater than that of conventional internal-combustion vehicles.
Upon reception of a valid warrant, the cloud provider should comply, provide the data and decrypt the data if it was encrypted by itself. Why a cloud provider should take side and decide to protect a party against another without legal binding to do so? There is no ground for such an insane behavior from a cloud provider. The cloud provider is providing services. If the client wish to protect his own data, it is up to him to protect it and encrypt it or not put it in the cloud in first place. Why should a cloud provider transform itself into a privacy activist?
However, if the provider is bound by contract to protect the data for its customers, in this case it is up to it to do so. But I don't know any sane person who would bind himself with such legal terms.
You can not get anything worthwhile done without raising a sweat. -- The First Law Of Thermodynamics