So you are saying that data is conflicting because it was cold the first 6 months of the year in the Eastern part of the US? The fact that it was very warm in Alaska and the Western part of the country doesn't matter?

If you don't think "Human Powers" have a major impact on the environment, take a look around you. I mean really take a look. How much of what you see day to day hasn't been shaped by people? Even most of wild places in the US (outside of Alaska perhaps) are wild because we allow them to be, - because they've been set aside.

Sorry I meant "centuries ago" not "200 centuries ago"

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 gives the same tax credit for advanced nuclear power as it does for wind energy. Even with the same subsidy the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) will be higher for Nuclear in 2019 than it is for wind. That's according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA).

Technology didn't stop 200 centuries ago. It marches forward. Instead of throwing all our eggs into either the Nuclear or Renewable basket, we should invest in both. Nuclear has some serious drawbacks. Don't pretend it doesn't. So does renewables. Let's solve the problems rather than becoming totally reliant on either one.

I'm old enough to remember the first moon shot. There used to be a time when the US was willing to invest billions to achieve goals and conquer technical challenges. Funny, the economy didn't collapse. It wasn't considered socialist or un-American. In fact, it was a point of pride and helped established us as world leaders. Now "American Ingenuity" is becoming a thing of the past.

While we sit around arguing whether global warming is a real issue or not, the rest of the world is moving forward with solutions. We're getting left in the dust.

I'm not sure how so many modern conservatives still manage to think of themselves as patriots while sticking their heads in the sand. It's pathetic.

Nuclear power plants are expensive to build and operate with any degree of safety. Wind is actually becoming fairly cost effective. That being said any realistic solution would include nuclear, renewables, and natural gas (at least for awhile). Also a major component would have to be major improvements in energy efficiency whether it be in transportation, HVAC, or transmission. Lots of energy is lost through pure waste. Efficiency measures save money over time and improves cash flow for business that implement them. Doesn't sound like crushing socialism to me.

Tying renewables and other non-nuclear solutions to some sort of socialist plot is just another way to scare people away from dealing with the problem.

Catholics don't consider everything the Pope says to be the incontestable word of God. That is a misconception. Only certain teachings or documents written by the Pope are considered "infallible". They have to meet very particular criteria and are rare. This is on purpose because they've learned the Church has to live with those proclamations forever.

For many years the Catholic Church has maintained that global warming is a real problem and that people should act accordingly, -as stewards of God's earth. Pope Francis has taken it a step farther but it's not a sudden change in position.

I was raised Catholic but no longer consider myself one. I still have a fascination for the Church's history and how it functions. I also share some of its values. To those that consider it an ultra-conservative organization, that's only partially true. It often isn't, at least not in the US political sense of the word "conservative". It's also a very large organization that exists within many countries and cultures. Though there is only one set of beliefs and teachings, the emphasis placed on those different teachings varies from place to place. For example, many Catholics in the US practice birth control even though the official teaching of the Church is that it's a sin (aside from "Natural Family Planning"). Few US priests (at least in my part of the country) are going to attempt to lecture their congregations on it.

So even though the Pope has put more teeth behind the Church's official stance on global warming, that doesn't mean that Catholic climate change skeptics are going to suddenly tow the party line. It will hopefully mean that the larger organization will make funds available to its churches to make them "greener" but I doubt it. Money tends to flow only in one direction within the Church.

And the cloud / cloud services aren't going away anytime soon. I have a hard time thinking of those as "Fads" though they might be supplanted or the terminology might change in a few years.

"Big Data" for me is still a buzzword that I'm not sure I understand the value of for most IT shops.

My first boss in IT (and the guy who hired me) was black.

I'm white and I was the first guy he hired into the newly formed department.

It's not higher math, but it's also not correct. ;-)

There is not a fixed amount of CO2 produced per person so doubling the population doesn't necessarily double the pollution. Further there are often serious issues that result from population decline. Just look at Japan. Besides, most of the Western world has near zero population growth and that trend is moving into Asia. My guess Africa won't be THAT far behind. Yes, birth control should be provided and encouraged in developing countries but I don't think we really need to be draconian about it.

Population does matter but it's not everything. Take a look at the Mayans. Many folks feel that the Mayan empire collapsed because they weren't living sustainably. Certainly population growth played a role but so did slashing and burning the rain forest.

Public schools aren't the only option. Most states now allow home schooling and there are always private schools (who may have their own policies). I think it's entirely reasonable for a state to say that not vaccinating your kids is putting other kids at risk and we therefore can't have them in a public school. As a parent, you may disagree but it is then up to you find alternative education, - and it is available.

If IT were easy and things never changed then anybody could do it. If you expect long term stability then you are in the wrong field.

I'm not suggesting that the state try to exclude kids from those things. Excluding them from school is a huge incentive to get them vaccinated. Only excluding them in the event of an outbreak removes that incentive and doesn't stop the kids from contracting it or spreading it by the time the outbreak is identified (or after).

Are they excluded from hanging around with their friends, non school sponsored sports, or other activities?

Except that often you need multiple doses and time for the immunizations to work. After an outbreak is too late.