". To all you science people, correlation does not equal causation. "
no shit, Sherlock.

" How else do you explain the many periods of warming and cooling in the past long before humans even existed?"
There are different way the earth can warm. The effect of shoving more green house gasses into the atmosphere causes warming on top of other trends. There is no doubt about this at all.

https://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/publ...

" I rest my case"
You did not, in any way, 'make a case'. You might want to learn what the means.
If you want to make a case, you need to start by showing which one of these is false:

1) The Earth gets lots of light from the sun
2) Visible light emits IR when it strike something
3) CO2 absorbs energy from IR
4) Humans but more green house gasses into the air then can be absorbed.

The basic science on warming is trivial. Literally any of these can, nad have, been test by any decent College lab. Hell, even A good high school lab could do it. This is why deniers never talk about the actual science and only talk about cherry picked data points, or make ad homs.

So, the climate is warming due to more energy being trapped.
Climate Change is the impact AGW has on the climate. They are related but separate issues.
So, why would adding energy to a system not change it?
At this point, some knuckle head is about to slam his meat hooks onto his keyboard in what he thinks is a clever retort,. I will take this time to remind him the new equilibrium is only reach when the change in energy stops, and there is no rule saying the planet need to be livable when equilibrium is achieved.

More to the point:
Why do you think there is a 97% consensus? Why do you think countries whose best interest would be that there is no AGW agree there is AGW?
Some people think there is a weird conspiracy. That would mean the China is in on it for no reason. Why?

Yes, we should prepare, but we can not adapt.
With are current Greenhouse gas release, there isn't an endpoint survivable by humans. It will get two warm for food growth, anywhere.
People act like, well it will happen and we will just farm 200 miles more north.

Well, it's funny you say that.

We saw two moons. One of which wasn't in earlier detections, and as it came around the brown dwarf, it just exploded. weird.

". You build a theory by standing on the shoulders of others and learning."
Yes. But if you don't even stand on the shoulders of the giants in a field, then you should probably shut the fuck up.

"Learning is the asking of questions."
Yes, but it isn't throwing out ideas so off base they aren't even wrong, and then telling people to show you why they can't be when the idea being stated makes no sense at all. AC who posted that question clearly doesn't know the first thing about dark matter. Frankly, the poster should have the decency to do some preliminary understanding of the problem before spouting off nonsense and then getting defensive about it.

You mean, first post courtesy of my unlimited comc

They say that beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.

They say that if you drop enough acid you see eyes in your beerholder.

Since they have no intention of actual using the service, then it's fraud.

No one knows that. It's a idea in 1(one) paper. Just like dozens of other solutions.
BTW, pouring them 'in place' brings up a whole new set of problems.

Well, it passed the KISS test, I guess that settles it. Lets totally forget other methods that pass the KISS test, and we will also forget the myriad of other thing that where done more difficult because of social reason and they didn't have the advantage of hind site.

They still need to move them after they were made.

", the pyramid gets less wide towards the top. "
That's what I've been doing wrong!

Doesn't mean they were formed in place.
Of course, a new valid theory about them seems to co out every decade, with little followup.

The premise is to makes stolen phone useless; which would nearly stop phone theft.

"The thief will unfairly target older phone model owners."
what the? dude, the thief is being unfair when he decided to steal a phone. By nature it's unfair. I highly doubt a phone thief will be an economist trying to equally balance the loss across society.

Setting aside all the incorrect assumptions you've stuffed into there, at worse case it would only be a few years, then phone swill be practically useless to steal.

Help me understand what I missed

The fact that they actually gave us a transcript instead of trying to make us watch two videos. I skimmed it in a couple minutes and reached the same conclusion. It's just a lot of dime-a-dozen cliches; but I didn't waste too much time finding that out. Thanks. Now make it a rule that you can't do video stories without a transcript, unless it's something where a transcript doesn't make sense such as a rocket launch, electronic music, or a badass sharkbot shooting lasers.

This is a huge change on the road. Just like all other changes, it needs to be put in incrementally so we can manage unintended consequence.

It's smart planning.