Basically, not true. There is, of course, an energy cost to making pretty much anything. Cars. Your shirt. A solar panel. But that cost is a one time cost.

Burning fuel to produce energy, on the other hand, incurs a continuous cost. Every day-- every second-- you are making energy, you must keep burning fuel. This results in a cumulative cost. Cumulative costs overwhelm the one-time cost.

And... the cost of making solar panels, and for that matter wind turbines, keeps getting cheaper as the manufacturing technology gets better. And, yes, that includes the energy cost.

Sort of.

Humans have removed most of the natural predators of birds, but cats, who have the ability to live alongside humans, have adapted to that ecological niche.

Data is here: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eea.europa.eu%2Fen%2Fa...

Germany is high in terms of CO2/kw-hr, but not the highest in Europe. Germany has dropped their CO2/kw-hr by 37 percent since 2010, so it is at last improving. France, as OP noted, is considerably lower.

This is technically true, but the amount of CO2 produced is so miniscule compared to burning fossil fuels that to a good first approximation it is zero.

Basically, when your entire method of producing energy is by burning hydrocarbons, you produce a lot of CO2.

The serious killer of birds is glass windows on skyscrapers.
Wind turbines barely rate.

Good. Coal combines the worst features of all the power technologies. It is an awful, dirty fuel, with a cost reckoned not merely in dollars but in lives.

They're retiring the coal plants because it's not cost-effective to run them, but all the other problems with coal are enough to make me cheer.

The last sentence of the article:

Whether it [the new law] withstands constitutional review will determine how far Germany’s commitment to individual privacy can bend in the name of security.

Climate models are physics bases, and, to date, have been quite successful in predictions.
  https://yaleclimateconnections...
  https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fscience.nasa.gov%2Fearth...

Say, looks like somebody's reading my papers!
  https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fp...

OK, good idea. What do you propose?

True, but couldn't we at least wait until we get the data for the full year before sending out a press release, instead of anticipating what the result is going to be?

What's the rush to get this non-news out in December?

Yes it was. That's why USENET invented moderation. The unmoderated forums were pretty horrific sometimes.

The one thing about USENET, though, is that the trolls and flamers and a$$holes were actual humans, not troll farms or click-farmers or AIs.

As others point out, cold cases are ones in which there is in no evidence pointing to a specific person, so, no, this is not possible.

I would like to agree with that, but the constitution really is not clear. This is not a search of a specific person, about which the constitution is clear; it's a search of a database.

Wait, what? You think a serial rapist-murderer is going to sue Ancestry.com for being convicted of murder because the were identified because a cousin gave dna to Ancestry.com? That would be laughed out of court.

I agree, but the people sending in the DNA don't have murders in their past, and so they're not stupidly handing themselves to the authorities on a platter. It's that nice-as-pie extended family member they don't suspect of anything untoward who's getting caught for a murder that may have been committed 20 years ago.

Crosswalks are dangerous.

A particular danger at crosswalks is cars making turns. It's often hard to see pedestrians when other cars are blocking the view. (And bicycles are always something to watch for.)