Much of the carbon was sourced from other countries, so they profited and thereby enabled the production of greenhouse gases as well. The USA has assuredly done both, but if the carbon producers, such as the Mideast, quit selling oil and coal, they could also control the amount of greenhouse gases emitted through supply reduction.

Much of the planet has benefitted from the industry and agriculture that the US and other industrial nations have provided through the use of carbon.

If the USA was located in a more temperate climate and had less area to travel over, then transportation and heating/cooling carbon emissions would be vastly reduced. Comparing other countries, that are smaller and featuring less demanding climates, to the US is a bit like comparing apples and oranges.

But we are too far down this path, without incredible efforts on our part, which I do not see happening in today's political climate, Mother Earth's natural temperature regulatory processes will dominate, but will they be enough that we will survive?

It used to be that Apple did things well, and did the UI with a consistency, but that is a thing of the past. For example, Steve Jobs would not have allowed the myriad of touch keyboards I find on my ipad, iphone, ipod—the whole point of the ToolBox was to keep a uniform user interface. Its operating systems have become a mess, ease of use and organization have been slowly diminishing for a long while now, but thank heaven that unix is still there, sort of.

This is probably because people with bad hearts, etc., do not drink coffee, hence only people who are healthier drink coffee when they are old. Isn't it amazing that they would have a reduced death rate. Imagine what the relative death rate would be for old people who skydive, compared to those who don't?

Timmy keep using my lunch to feed the computer! Not fair!

Or he'd REALLY get nailed, not the slap on the wrist he's getting1

Isn't it hard to find restaurant conversions? You'd be more successful at a revival meeting, perhaps?

Considering the declining IQ of the USA, all that history stuff is superfluous anyway...

1. He wasn't writing this, he was describing it on Donahue, during an interview. It is too long ago for me to recall if he was hawking a book, but I don't believe that he was. 2. There are a gazillion items surrounding us today that would have elicited a similar "fecal" remark 100 years ago, let alone 100,000 years ago. Just as a "for instance", contemplate strands of nanotubes, metallically sealed, perhaps in a honeycomb structure, perhaps bonded through a metallic core. Even if the strength of each strand was slight, imagine 10^15 strands. Might be quite strong, lightweight, and thin? But I suppose a bigger issue is that we cannot fly about as UFOs are described. But what about in 500 years? 10,000? 100,000?

As for reliability, the missile silo guys are vetted more than just about anyone in the country. Too many reliable individuals have seen UFOs for there not to be something going on. Donahue had a retired Major on the program in about 1979-1980 who described picking up dead bodies of small, alien looking individuals at Rosswell. He also described picking up a piece of metal, thin as aluminum foil, but he couldn't dent it with a sledgehammer.