meilenb (5/27/2015)

---

Alan.B (5/27/2015)

---

meilenb (5/27/2015)

---

Alan.B (5/27/2015)

---

Lynn Pettis (5/27/2015)

---

meilenb (5/27/2015)

---

Alan.B (5/27/2015)

---

Emph. mine

meilenb (5/24/2015)

---

...

Everyone knows that CO2, CH4 and N2O ...

How is the science clear on climate change when the scientists can't agree? Plus, the scientists claiming global warming is true can't explain why all their climate models are wrong in their predictions.

As far as I am concerned, this is not a done deal.

+1

There it is Alan. You have just proved that politics and religion trump science. This explains your repulsiveness to my post -- say no more.

My point is valid...

Thanks

This is the last I'll say about this and move on.

Though I don't think that SSC is a good forum for the point that you attempted to make, I agreed with what Lynn said and felt a "+1" was in order; nothing religious or political about it. I have some very well researched and informed opinions about the topic you attempted to inject but this is a technical forum about SQL Server. Gail's article about Scientific Method was in that context; this is why she used the join on string example.

SQLServerCentral is, IMHO, hands down the best resource for learning about MS SQL in the universe. It is my "home"; it has changed my career. Regardless of if you are right or wrong, the problem with making bold scientific/political statements as you did is that it turns this forum into something that it's not. It turns it into something less that what it was before your comment.

You have 15 points. That means that you have made 15 contributions to these forums. I just reviewed your last 15 comments and you have insulted a few people, attempted to insult me (I think) but have not contributed anything that helps people become better Developers, DBAs, BI practitioners, etc. I believe you are missing an opportunity to learn or teach somebody something useful. If you have a way to make my queries faster I'd love to hear it. If you have some SQL related questions you will get answers. If you don't have either then I suggest that you find something else to do with your time.

My point is perfectly valid.

Science is only useful to people who know how to use it. Your statement that my point is not valid was an insult. You have contributed nothing in this thread except to suggest that 10 climate scientists will have 10 different opinions on climate science. My suggestion to you on this ridiculous comment is "Cite it". If you can't then "prove it", if you can't then I suggest you find something better to do with your time than throwing out wild assertions with no basis in fact.

And yes, I only have 15 points. I must be at the bottom of this cliquish forum.

If you don't like what I have to say, then ignore it. How hard is that? If you throw out an insult, you should expect the same in return.

And obviously you can't read either. Alan didn't say your point wasn't valid, I did.

You tell Alan to cite his sources, I guess you should site yours as well. I have done enough research on climate change to know that unlike the politicians that claim the climate change is settled science, it isn't. And no, I don't plan on going back and finding all the sites and papers I read on the subject. If your curious about it, Google or Bing are your friend, do the research.

Googling for me tends toward a majority consensus recommending cutting emissions, but even a few minutes of casual analysis for me points that way.

The huge difficulty with the climate topic is the scope of the repercussions either way. If it were easy to cut co2 levels, it would be a no brainer, we would cut them right? The logically safe bet is to not inject greenhouse gasses into the finite atmosphere, there isn't even an experiment needed to determine that not changing atmospheric composition is better than changing, right? I mean, was there some research or experimental evidence discovered somewhere that somebody says "HEY! WE NEED SOME MORE CO2 UP IN THE HOUSE???????"

Seriously, if we could inject co2 to 500 ppm or whatever, run a "test" planet like that for 5000 years and find out its all good then yeah, lets go! Thats the problem though, that particular scientific method is useless here, the best we have are models but even then we're not sure so the safe bet is to not venture into the unknown and NOT CHANGE OUR ATMOSPHERE.

The difficulty is that its tremendously hard to cut greenhouse gas emissions simply by the scale of the problem and the sheer momentum of human civilization and industrialization, it would be more honest of us to admit to these difficulties rather than "question the scientific findings," but politics does enter the issue and counter with the goodness of infinite economic growth on a finite planet and "whats the matter with a little smog, storms, famine and drought, look at all the shiny things you have!!!!"

ON THE OTHER HAND, I personally believe we're going to miss the various co2 targets just by the inertia we have going right now, so its my expectation that we're going to "run this test in production" so to speak...

But that doesn't mean we have to sit here and sling insults right? I mean, some of my bestest friends are <$POLITICAL_PARTY>.