This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
To the 34% of American Adults Who Are "Worried a Great Deal" about "Global Warming"
Preface: A recent Gallup poll showed that 34% of American adults worried “a great deal” about “global warming”. This essay is written for that 34%.
Many well-intentioned people are desperately trying to stop climate change …
And yet they are proposing things that will put more C02 and methane into the air and otherwise do more harm than good.
Frack That
Many propose nuclear and fracking as a way to reduce carbon emissions.
In reality, scientists say that fracking pumps out a lot of methane … into both our drinking water and the environment.
Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas: 72 times more potent as a warming source than CO2.
As such, fracking actually increases – rather than decreases – global warming.
Are Nukes the Answer?
It turns out that nuclear is not a low-carbon source of energy … and funding nuclear crowds out the development of better sources of alternative energy.
Mark Jacobson – the head of Stanford University’s Atmosphere and Energy Program, who has written numerous books and hundreds of scientific papers on climate and energy, and testified before Congress numerous times on those issues – notes that nuclear puts out much more pollution (including much more CO2) than windpower, and 1.5% of all the nuclear plants built have melted down. More information here, here and here.
Jacobson also points out that it takes at least 11 years to permit and build a nuclear plant, whereas it takes less than half that time to fire up a wind or solar farm. Between the application for a nuclear plant and flipping the switch, power is provided by conventional energy sources … currently 55-65% coal.
Scam and Trade
One of the main solutions to climate change which has long been pushed by the powers that be – cap and trade – is a scam. Specifically:
- The economists who invented cap-and-trade say that it won’t work for global warming
- Many environmentalists say that carbon trading won’t effectively reduce carbon emissions
- Our bailout buddies over at Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and the other Wall Street behemoths are buying heavily into carbon trading (see this, this, this, this, this and this).
As University of Maryland professor economics professor and former Chief Economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission Peter Morici writes:
Obama must ensure that the banks use the trillions of dollars in federal bailout assistance to renegotiate mortgages and make new loans to worthy homebuyers and businesses. Obama must make certain that banks do not continue to squander federal largess by padding executive bonuses, acquiring other banks and pursuing new high-return, high-risk lines of businesses in merger activity, carbon trading and complex derivatives. Industry leaders like Citigroup have announced plans to move in those directions. Many of these bankers enjoyed influence in and contributed generously to the Obama campaign. Now it remains to be seen if a President Obama can stand up to these same bankers and persuade or compel them to act responsibly.
In other words, the same companies that made billions off of derivatives and other scams and are now getting bailed out on your dime are going to make billions from carbon trading.
War: The Number One Source of Carbon
The U.S. military is the biggest producer of carbon on the planet.
Harvey Wasserman notes that fighting wars more than wipes out any reduction in carbon from the government’s proposed climate measures.
Writing in 2009 about the then-proposed escalation in the Afghanistan war, Wasserman said:
The war would also come with a carbon burst. How will the massive emissions created by 100,000-plus soldiers in wartime be counted in the 17% reduction rubric? Will the HumVees be converted to hybrids? What is the carbon impact of Predator bombs that destroy Afghan families and villages?
The continuance of fighting all over the Middle East and North Africa completely and thoroughly undermines the government’s claims that there is a global warming emergency and that reducing carbon output through cap and trade is needed to save the planet.
I can’t take anything the government says about carbon footprints seriously until the government ends the unnecessary wars … all over the globe.
So whatever you think of climate change, all people can agree that ending the wars is important. (War also destroys the economy.)
Anyone who supports “humanitarian war” by the U.S. is supporting throwing a lot of carbon into the air.
Dumb as a Mongoose In Hawaii
Many scientists suggest “geoengineering” the Earth’s climate. But that could actually worsen climate change. It could also increase the risk of drought.
Moreover, geoengineering would increase ocean acidification and decrease available sunlight for solar power.
And once we started, we could never stop.
Some of the geoengineering proposals are downright nuts. For example, “government scientists are studying the feasibility of sending nearly microscopic particles of specially made glass into the Earth’s upper atmosphere to try to dampen the effects of ‘global warming.’ ” Others are currently suggesting cutting down trees and burying them. Other ways to geoengineer the planet are being studied and tested (and see this and this), involving such things as dumping barium, aluminum and other toxic metals into the atmosphere.
Remember, the mongoose was introduced to Hawaii in order to control the rats (which were eating the sugar cane used to make rum). It didn’t work out very well … mongeese are daylight-loving creatures while rats are nocturnal. So the mongeese trashed the native species in Hawaii, and never took care of the rats.
Similarly, the harm caused by many of these methods have not been thought through … and they could cause serious damage to our health and our ecosystems.
So – whatever you think about climate – you can obviously agree that we should approach climate change from the age-old axiom of “first, do no harm”, making sure that our “solutions” do not cause more damage than the problems.
So What’s the Answer?
If nuclear, fracking, cap and trade and geoengineering aren’t the answer, what is?
There are 3 main strategies which both climate activists and climate skeptics can agree on, because they have big upsides whether or not the Earth is warming:
(1) Reducing soot will quickly reduce melting of ice and snow. Reducing soot will be cheaper than the “decarbonation” which many policy-makers have proposed. And it would increase the health of millions of people worldwide
(2) Use specific smart combinations of solar, wind and geothermal energy
(3) Decentralize power generation and storage. That would empower people and communities, produce less carbon, prevent nuclear disasters like Fukushima, reduce the dangers of peak oil (and thus prevent future oil spills like we had in the Gulf), and have many other positive effects
We don’t need fascism to make this happen … We just need a sound plan.
- advertisements -


The equivalent of Godwins Law for Global Warming debates is that the first person to mention Al Gore loses...
Nice try, maybe we can play again someday...
Did you hear me when I said you can't win? You all are the stupid fucks that campaign for the global warming scam, not reaizing that carbon is the element that creates life in this realm.
The Globalists are telling you that your very essence is evil, Fuck them and everybody that looks like them.
he's already won as the facts & evidence show warming, not cooling, and show it where there's industrial output of burning fuel as the highest temperatures at any given time, even night time.
You don't know your ass from apple butter. Thanks for playing.
Zzzzz...
Ran out of rational arguments, did ya'? It's cool. Ya, maybe we can play again someday. Right now, you're an idiot who thinks he/she knows some shit.
To be fair, you might be one of my own. I taught them to be themselves. In truth, I view you as a dipshit that I would not allow in my family.
Yeah, and you think that the people analysing the data don't take that into account...
There are papers from 1959 that discuss the effect....
Here is one a bit more recent
http://climatechange.procon.org/sourcefiles/influence-of-urban-heating-o...
Here is an "amateur" replicating things with just 60 rural stations
http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2010/05/just-60-stations.html
and revisited
http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2014/01/just-60-global-stations-area-weighting...
----
My you are full of shit...
Ha! Here you are. You move toward increasingly obscure "sources". The global warming thing is dead. Find another crusade, nobody gives a fuck.
It clearly flew way over your head....
To be honest, flak... I don't even click that shit. The U of east anglia bullshit pretty much cured me of "official statements and data" related to global warming.
Answer a simple question, Why do you support obvious horseshit?
Actaully, the evidence and credibility of those involved would suggest you're the one swallowing the horseshit...
BTW, clinging to Climategate marks you as being a whackadoo. There are enough Hockey sticks now to ice an NHL team....
No, he actually held is ground with no problems. Flak to date has never fallen down in providing accurate data & solid sources.
He addressed your concerns about where we measure & NASA actually using infrared to measure emission from the surface covers that very nicely, even over the oceans (I addressed that several times directly, possibly to you as well in the last several months)
"No, he actually held is ground with no problems"
LOL. No, no he/you didn't.
lol...dude all flake does is say "none of your sources are credible. all of mine are 100% credible. therefore, I am correct." oooook, asshole! and you wonder why I dont give him any links and just ask him logical questions he doesnt want to answer, or turns around and points to frauds like Hansen or Mann to back up his fantasies. there is no "debate" with such people.
Not that this artcile is a great literary piece, but anyone that denies climate change is an f'n idiot (draw from facts, it's simple). And think about this: Why doesnt everyone drive an electric car and have solar panels (you can easily pay for these two items with a loan paid many times over by not spending $4 a gallon for gasoline)? It's because BIG OIL has each and every one of you (us) by the balls. No different then tearing down rail service in LA many years ago,....no different than big tabacco stretching out their bullshit congressional testimony over 30 years. Only this is much more serious...MUCH MORE........the evidence of tabacco use dies out every year and are burried. The earth doesn't die, it just changes slowly....much too slowly to have big oil and the politicians they buy have any worries whatsoever....Anyone that doesnt see this is in denial and exactly where they want you.
"Not that this artcile is a great literary piece, but anyone that denies climate change is an f'n idiot (draw from facts, it's simple)."
Climate is not static. It has changed warmer and cooler.
"No different then tearing down rail service in LA many years ago."
There was no conspiracy. Ford made the automoble affordable to most and people in L.A. came to love to drive.
"Not that this article is a great literary piece, but anyone that denies climate change is an f'n idiot (draw from facts, it's simple)"
Uh, yea, climate has been changing since earth cooled and formed an atmosphere. I've never heard anyone claim otherwise. Conflation of climate change and anthropogenic forced global warming is a dead give away you don't know what your talking about. Real science would never claim something like man caused global warming is "proven" given the sheer complexities of climate. Not to mention fudging data, (current cooling trend or static trend) altering data to fit the theory (see James Hansen altering ice core data because C02 levels were much higher in the distant past with no humans to blame), unknown or disputed C02 dissipation rates (see 1990 ICPC report were it says that dissipation rates vary for unknown reasons), the suns obvious role in climate (lots of research on this). Science is about the pursuit of truth not bend the truth to fit your theory/agenda. Or flat out lie. Or use propaganda. Or language tricks.
"It's because BIG OIL has each and every one of you (us) by the balls".
If by the balls you mean provide an essential product that you benefit from, then yea. You are dependent on fossil fuels not just for your car but the food you put in your pie hole. Your car is really irrelevant when it comes to oil. Fertilizer and pesticides are made from what.......petroleum. Whats that you say, organic composting? OK, we'll just have to bump your calorie intake down to 150 and we should be able to feed some, most maybe!
This dumb ass attitude toward oil is stupid. 'I don't like the fact that I'm dependent on my hands for everything so I'm going to cut them off. That will show the BIG HAND lobby'! I would rather not be dependent on oil but that's not possible yet. YET. We have a ways to go.
Besides you can lower your own dependence on oil by growing your own food, spend a ton of money on solar, buy an electric car. Go right ahead.
BUT FOR FUCKS SAKE STOP TRYING TO CONTROL ME USING PSEUDO SCIENCE!
"Real science would never claim something like man caused global warming is "proven" given the sheer complexities of climate"
anthropogenic global warming is about acceped as a scientific theory as gravity.
can you give us the number of scientists and disciplines that accept this theory?
the concept that global warming is a hoax is pseudo-science.
The proof that global warming is real is actual science.
Proven many times over in the last 10 years.
For AGW to be false we'd have to have no more than 10% of actual absorption of infrared by methane & CO2 with existing concentrations but this violates laws of physics.
Can I add you to my garden compost pile?
If you believe global warming is a hoax you just added yourself and the entire species to the compost pile, you'll actually murder us all.
looks like only one f'kn idiot here .... and thats you dipshit.
global warming is a euro-socialist invention to kill productivity and drive more tax revenue from the private sector into the hand of USELESS FUCKING GOOBERMINT!!!!
that's all it is folks. it was global warming and now it's climate change - why???? cause we FROZE OUR FUCKING ASSES OFF THIS WINTER - AGAIN!!!!!!!!!
FUCK YOU AL GORE YOU DISGUSTING FAT PIG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
" we FROZE OUR FUCKING ASSES OFF THIS WINTER - AGAIN!"
(Palm to face.....)
You obviously don't grasp the concept of "WEATHER" and "CLIMATE".... and the differences between them.....
I hope you don't have children or grand-kids... for two reasons...
One, the consequences of the willful ignorance and hubris of this generation.
Two, I truly believe that STUPID PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BREED.
You're an idiot.
1 winter in 1 country is NOT GLOBAL CLIMATE.
The winter for you is SUMMER FOR AUSTRALIA and South America where it was plenty hot at 37+ C.
If it gets 3 degrees COLDER for you and FOUR (4) degrees WARMING in the same period for the SUMMER on the other side of the planet that's still average WARMING even if it's the coldest winter you ever had.
17 -1's means 17 dumb Murrikinz have gone full-retard and believe winter in America is winter for the entire planet all at once. Fuckmonkeys.
So, 34% of Americans still believe in fairy tales!
And 39% of those are worried that the IPCC is being used to take over control of global rescources. Including land M'Fers.
Anyhow next winter as we get another year into the Maunder minimum that is upon us ought to be a real show stopper as people start freezing to death.Last year was bad but you ain't seen nothing.
Sun spot shutdown is happening much faster than thought.
Those sun spot cycles actually do not make the Earth cool down. At all. Ever.
Most of the sunspot material is charged particles, inducing no heat upon Earth, mostly pushed away by the magnetic field. In the past there's never, ever been a global cooling matching up with a Maunder minimum. Ever.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA palereldritch's rebuttal made you look like an absolute MORON. Is that why you aren't going to respond to him?
no one's response to me makes me look like a moron. I stick to solid evidence which makes me right & intelligent. I haven't seen palereldritch's comment yet. There's a lot of them and I'm working through a few.
You must be getting quite a howl out of the idiots I have called out...
you wonder why we think you're an idiot? its because of statements like this. this is exactly what we talk of when we say FUNDAMENTAL FLAW.
you miss something that basic and important in your model and it is GARBAGE, no matter how much time you put into curve fitting and coefficient tweaking to obtain your "right" result.
please explain the polar vortex phenomenon over the last 5 years and what caused it.
I Googled your following attestation: "...there's never, ever been a global cooling matching up with a Maunder minimum. Ever."
And got this in 30 seconds:
During each of the 18 deep solar minima of Maunder type with a bicentennial cycle in the during the last 7,500 years, deep cooling was observed, while during periods of high maxima – global warming.
By looking at Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), astrophysicist Dr Habibullo I. Abdussamatov of Russia’s Pulkovo Observatory says he can define and predict well in advance the direction and amplitude of forthcoming climate changes.
From the early 90s, Dr Abdussamatov has observed bicentennial decrease in both the TSI and the portion of its energy absorbed by the Earth, which, he says, will result in a temperature drop in approximately 2014.
Then, due to the ensuing increase of albedo and decrease in greenhouse gases, the absorbed portion of solar energy and the influence of the greenhouse effect will additionally decline.
He expects the onset of a deep bicentennial minimum of TSI in 2042±11, and the beginning of a Little Ice Age – the 19th Little Ice Age in the past 7500 years – in 2055±1
located here
http://iceagenow.info/2012/06/astrophysicist-forecasts-19th-ice-age-7500...
and published here:
This paper was posted in Applied Physics Research under the title “Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age” on 1 Feb 2012. You can access the paper here:
http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/14754/10140
I hope they're not paying you well. Even minimum wage would be too much.
And yet none of this matches existing records. We get a Maunder cycle every 11 years and we do NOT get temperatures dropping with it, which is my point.
You are disproving nothing, certainly not disproving anything I wrote.
Sunspot activity does NOT correlate with cooling.
"McPhaden, et al. 2011) confirm our results (Abdussamatov, 2009a, b) concerning a common action of
eleven-year and bicentennial cyclic variations of the total solar irradiance (TSI) (with some time-lag) on the change of state of the surface and subsurface layers (with the depth of tens and hundreds of meters) in the tropical part of the Pacific Ocean accompanied with appearance of warm or cold water (the cycles of La Niña or"
We'll see about that. That's 3 more papers to read before I can verify 1 claim of this paper and the SURFACE of dirt in the Pacific? Really? As if it never moves in 7.5 millenia?
And you think you're a skeptic! Clearly we use opposite definitions of everything because that one assertion right there is flippin' crazy.
http://www.readfearn.com/2013/05/the-australian-brings-you-the-climate-s... - well there's one to be highly suspect of right off the bat but evidence will speak for itself. So far I'm finding none but will keep reading. This will probably take a week unless I want to stop working my overtime and you're not worth the effort so I won't.
Here's Flak's favourite site on the topic:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-i...
and picture http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Solar_vs_temp_500.jpg looks to contradict you and agree with me so far. References Lockwood, 2008, http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1387.abstract "It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward; the best estimate is ?1.3% and the 2? confidence level sets the uncertainty range of ?0.7 to ?1.9%. The result is the same if one quantifies the solar variation using galactic cosmic ray fluxes (for which the analysis can be extended back to 1953) or the most accurate total solar irradiance data composite."
I'm done reading the PDF now. He provides no data in it. He references back to the 2007 paper but his charts for declining solar irradiance do not in fact match up with temperatures as we've had increases over this period, 1980's to present, not decreases. I therefore conclude this paper refutes nothing I've written. I'll see what the others say that are referenced as "in agreement" with his "results"
Naturally I got stuck at this link http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL048275/pdf and no intention of paying for the article for a 24 hour period just to prove you wrong and be out of pocket.
It's real nice, visible from http://icecap.us/images/uploads/abduss_APR.pdf , that he refers to his own papers first for the last 10 years and then a few others. Not looking good for your argument.
In http://icecap.us/images/uploads/abduss_APR.pdf I can see there is no single TSI composite that produces any reliable data at all to work from, throwing all the work of Abdussamatov into question that relies upon TSI and TSI forcing.
"In particular, PMOD severely alters the data from the Nimbus7/ERB TSI record during the ACRIM gap from 1989 to 1991. Nimbus7/ERB satellite TSI data during such a short period show a clear upward trend while the PMOD during the same period is almost constant. So the Nimbus7/ERB satellite TSI data has been altered. The alteration of the Nimbus7/ERB data during the ACRIM gap is responsible of the different shape between the ACRIM and PMOD TSI composites. ACRIM composite suggests that TSI underwent a 22?year like cycle: the average TSI value during solar cycle 21-22 (1980?1991) was lower than the average TSI value during solar cycle 22?23 (1991?2002),which seems is larger than the predicted average TSI value duringsolarcycle23?24(2002?2003)." (PDF page 8)
Not long after in the document I find this "It is evident that this mathematical methodology is physically erroneous. In fact, it assumes that the climate is partially conditioned by the ? future ? behavior of the sun ! Note that by using the above example, the moving average value set in 1996 depends on the TSI values for 5 years in the past and the TSI values for 5 years in the future! And these values are compared with the temperature record."
I think it's time to move on.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/acrim-pmod-sun-getting-hotter.htm makes reference to http://www.acrim.com/Reference%20Files/Sun%20&%20Global%20Warming_GRL_20... and I think I've devoted more time than you're worth for the night to this topic.
And based on my watching of "The View," I'm worried I'll be assed rape tonight.
"The first sign of enlightenment in the Internet age is the abandonment of the television, especially for 'news.'"
global temperature changes are caused primarily by solar activity - this is science... everything else is religious camp meeting frothing at the mouth emotion..
there is no tangible evidence of global warmig and no evidence that it is harmful....recent evidence actually points to global cooling.
global warming is another ziocon tool for bringing in totalitarian new world order slavery, and to concoct schemes to enrich banksters.
ps - the earth's axis of rotation is not fixed, and this causes the incidence of solar energy to effect surface temperatures significantly. it's time to use science rather than secular religion to understand climate change.
Untrue or we'd see the same solar changes on the moon and the planets near us. Those planets farther out would heat very little that we could measure due to the inverse square law.
"the earth's axis of rotation is not fixed, and this causes the incidence of solar energy to effect surface temperatures significantly"
Incorrect. The variance year to year is very small and the cycle is repeating over many centuries. What we see now is a permanent warming, irreversible warming, because of excess CO2 & methane in the atmosphere, a rate of increase never happening in the history of all life in the known universe ever.
Ever.
Global permanent temperature rises won't be caused by the sun until it rises in output permanently and it is not at this time. One day it will but that's billions of years away.
Hey Mr. Bogus. Do you understand the Beer-Lambert law of radiation absorbance? Certainly not or you could not possibly believe CO2 can can trap significant additonal heat via radiation absorbance once its concentration is above 200 ppm (i.e. pre-industiral levels). That's when the 15 micron aborbance band of CO2 reached 99% of complete attenuation. It reached 90% of complete absorbance at 20 ppm! Here's the form of radiation absorbance:
I/I(0) = 10 ^(-a c) where a= molar extinction * path length, is a constant, I(0) is the incidence radiation intensity and c is the concentration of the absorbing species. Its true for every absorbing species at every wavelength.
If this is too complex for you to grasp just imagine painting a wall black. Now add a second black coat. Doesn't look any blacker does it? You've saturated its absorbance. Also, applies to insulation thichness in your attic. You can't trap significant additional heat once you have a sufficient insulation thickness.
So, everyone can relax about CO2- the "theory" behind its contribution confuses correlation with causation. CH4, which isn't presence in the atmosphere at appreciable quantity is another matter. It could add to radiation trapping and heat retention in the lower troposphere.
It's the long weekend, do you now have time to write up those equations proving the 200 ppm? With any molecule much less CO2? Kinda looks like you didn't have any math to work with that supports your claim. At the very least I'd expect some kind of limit equation to just barely try to scrape together a maybe-argument. Come on, you can do it.
but we're nowhere near the absorbance which is why it keeps getting hotter with more CO2 being added. I guess we'll see experimentally where we're at the limit when temperature can't go up. 200 ppm? Nonsensical. If CO2 dropped to only 200 ppm from where we are now we'd all be wearing long shirts or where I am in Canada, parkas, in June. The problem here is not just CO2 but methane as well.
FURTHER you are ignoring REFLECTION.
This is how it works: reflection, absorption, transmission - 3 choices.
ONE OF these choices is good for us: transmission.
The other 2 fuck is into extinction with high levels of CO2 & methane. The one thing we can count on is that the infrared is NOT leaving and the temperature is rising.
Funny what else I found:
Since A' = -ln(I/ I0) and A = epsilon l c = alpha l then absorption is LINEAR with concentration NOT DIMINISHING.
Funny, that contradicts everything you just claimed. I'm not a physicist but I do have a computer science degree. Following how numbers flow between equations is child's play for me.
Now it's your turn: let's see any combination of equations that lets you show that with CO2 in particular there's a diminishing absorption. Go on, we can both review the equations.
Once you're done (likely) making a fool of yourself we can start looking at reflection since you chose to ignore it completely. But of course, take your time.
and they can't spell "separation of effects" either
Coltrane, do the integral treating each step in dz as a new radiating surface and you find that you are completely wrong...
It is not as if the long wave IR spectrum has not been measured ad naseum for the past 40 years....
Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006
The only thing saturated is your deliberate lack of comprehension....
For the Beer-Lambert law to remain predictive there are several strict prerequisites that must be met.
Atmospheric CO2 does not meet all of them.
If they're not all met then the law's predictions become worthless. Nice try.
" predictions become worthless"
And all your computer models about your theories have failed at their predictions. But me thinks you wouldn't say your bullshit theories are worthless.
" predictions become worthless"
And all your computer models about your theories have failed at their predictions. But me thinks you wouldn't say your bullshit theories are worthless.
The ability of a computer model to predict climate changes has no bearing on the fact that the atmosphere's thermal capacity changes when CO2 is added or removed.
You, my friend, are not a scientist, but the member of a psuedo-science religious cult not unlike those that attempt to scare people to conversion via end-times propaganda. Their end-times scenario isn't 'global warming' but basically the same scare tactics, illogic, and cherry picking of 'facts' and 'events' that support their religious views. Scarily similar.............
I'm a computer scientist, not a climate scientist. I understand the math & software, much of the hardware used in proving global warming. I can learn the rest on the basis of not being stupid.
the damage we already see from warming, flooding & new drought areas (which will stay that way) is enough to kill off at least half the Earth's population in 100 years.
If the trend continues for the warming rather than just the observed damage we'll all be extinct in 200 years.
done.
Many thanks for continuing to validate my opinion, based on my observation of highly "educated" people.
I work in IT. If I were hiring for a position and someone showed up with a degree in "computer science", I'd probably politely take it out of their hands, throw it on the ground, and piss on it. That's about all it's worth in the 'real world'.
I find it amusing how many of you are working in retail, or other 'McJobs'. Yet, you know just what to do to solve "global warming". lol
(please do tell from where you graduated, so I can discriminate against everyone associated with your school)
Why do you even have an opinion?
Thinkers need none. Just facts & exploration for new evidence of anything / everything/
I graduated from Queens University. And you can go fuck yourself. Not for a million dollars a year would I work with/for someone like you. Your ignorance shows me you to be a petty and vicious person who prefers personal lies that make you feel good rather than actual reality. I'd want to punch you in the face every 3 seconds if I was in your presence.
I'm not about to say Queens was amazing, it's not MIT or Waterloo but regardless: I've made no mistakes so far in this discourse. There hasn't even been an opportunity: the hoaxers say "cooling" and the measurements show warming. It's impossible to lose that fight. The attempt with Beer-Lambert law was a nice try but since the assertions blatantly are contradicted by how the equations actually work that leaves the commenter again with no support at all.
Everything I see, every bit of energy flowing or matter changing, equations, is nothing more complex to me than the equivalent of variables storing states representing numeric values, memory addresses having data moved between them. No matter how many simultaneous events or how many variables, no matter how many dimensions are needed to actually visualize it, I can, and that means this is zero challenge to me.
If we were having this argument before the measurements were made I'd have to be quiet and settle for "well, let's go measure the temperature" but we're 30 years later into the argument so losing this argument would be very difficult for me.