andrew gothard (5/28/2015)
meilenb (5/24/2015)
Everyone knows that CO2, CH4 and N2O are factors in climate change. CH4 (refrigerants) in particular is a 21 multiplier to CO2, R-508B (refrigerant) is a 10,350 multiplier, etc. etc. yet there are still thousands of scientists who argue climate change is not human caused
There aren't. Certainly not with any relevant academic credentials, put it this way, I bet you'd find it rather hard to find a proper peer reviewed paper from a reputable journal arguing this. You'll probably get all kinds of swivel-eyed loons over on Fox in the states spoting such nonsense - but I doubt there's a scientific credential among them.
In the UK, when the BBC are required to pull in a talking head to deny climate change in the interests of 'balance', they're usually stuck with bringing in Nigel Lawson - an ex Chancellor of the Exchequer and oil and coal company lobbyist. He's not even really an Economist, let alone a reputable scientist.
Seriously guys, I don't have a dog in this hunt, but this isn't the place for this particular debate. Heck, a cursory Google search shows that "There aren't" is easily dismissed[/url] from multiple sources. And, please, I'm not picking sides on this debate. I just want to point out that it is entirely possible that this is not the cut & dried, "gravity drops apples on peoples heads" level of scientific discussion that has been claimed.
Can we bring this back around to focus on databases, SQL Server and the need for using something that at least resembles the scientific method when talking about stuff like the number of JOINs you can have in a query?
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood"
- Theodore Roosevelt
Author of:
SQL Server Execution Plans
SQL Server Query Performance Tuning