Everyone should be armed. Assuming you're not a felon, a weapon should be in every single citizen's possession. Period. No loopholes.

Felons are citizens. That sounds like a loophole.

As languages and tools are fundamentally incapable of "fixing" limitations of the people using them, I guess you are on the left-side of the Dunning-Kruger graphs as well

Computers enhancing human reasoning. Therefore, computers can't "fix" all human limitations, they can only fix some of them. This is true regardless of whether or not you're a bad programmer. A safe programming language can make a bad programmer into a decent programmer, and a good programmer into great programmer (where "greatness" is a measure of defect rate per thousand lines of code).

You might as well argue that we should go back to designing bridges and buildings on pencil and paper, because only people who don't understand civil engineering need to design such things using computers. It's an asinine point of view. Good engineers can design ambitious buildings with computers that could never have been designed on pencil and paper, and the "trivial" buildings and bridges that still need building are left for engineers with more limitations.

The exact analogous argument applies to programming. Computers and safe programming languages enhance human reasoning, and if you don't think so, then I suggest you throw away all of your calculators and computers, because clearly you can get on just fine in today's world without them. Good luck with that.

Unfortunately, bullying is not against the law, its against POLICY. Necessity is for breaking THE LAW. No law was broken so you can't take this route.

Depends. Quite a bit of bullying is physical assault, and it's definitely harassment.

"Scientists" have been caught inflating/skewing their results to increase funding.

I'm aware of plenty of manufactured "scandals" in which no fake or massaged data was ever revealed. In fact, they generally amount to quotations taken out of context and blown to volcanic proportions. Sorry if I don't find this convincing.

The security level of a piece of code with good security is 95% coder competence and 5% language, i.e. language is irrelevant.

Sure, and memory management, and program correctness, and just about any other achievable program property is 95% coder competence and 5% language by this argument. Except the coders that can guarantee 100% that said property is achieved make up 0.001% of the coder population, which means the vast majority of importance falls on the language to prevent memory leaks, out of bounds errors, and the plethora of other program correctness violations and security vulnerabilities.

Language is important for code performance though, but only in the sense that it can kill it.

A language implementation determines code performance, not a language.

This nonsense about the language being capable of fixing problems with the people using is comes from "management" types that are unable to handle people that are individuals.

No, it comes from other programmers who recognize not only their own limitations, but the limitations of nearly every other human being who can't seem to come to the same realizations. Dunning-Kruger all the way.

But no, if they discover something that might counter current scientific beliefs, they might loose funding or even their jobs...

You don't understand how science works. If they discover something counter to what we currently know, they'll get more funding to explore this new discovery.

Furthermore, scientists have standards of conduct, transparency requirements and ethics reviews, but the interests opposing AGW do not. And yet you're more skeptical of the transparent science than you are of the unsupported claims of vested interests?

Also interesting that this whole (alleged) "conflict of interest" argument that's used against scientists, applies more to the people opposed to AGW, and yet the AGW-deniers somehow think the latter is just fine, while the former calls into question the scientific data and the conclusions it implies.

AGW deniers are no better than the anti-vaccination idiots.

we cannot ascertain the temperatures of past centuries with enough precision to make any such study nor claims

Says the random redditor with no credentials in a scientific field to the thousands of scientists who actually work in this field. Are you for real? I really wonder how you can use a computer that's built on principles discovered using the same scientific method, and then seriously claim that the results of applying that same method to climate are suddenly no longer valid. Your logic is not like Earth logic.

How does a 500 year data set apply to a 4.5 billion year old planet?

Anthropogenic warming isn't dangerous to the planet, it's dangerous to us. The timeline of the planet is irrelevant.

Think about it. Could you predict the sentiments of every human on the planet (over 4 billion) by asking the last 500 people born?

Yes, for an analogous meaning of "predict" as applies to the AGW scenario, ie. not predict precise emotions and behaviour at any given instant, but predict general trends with a certain probability distribution. What do you think psychology is all about? They conduct surveys and studies of small a percentage of the population to find correlations and establish general trends about humanity, like what makes people happy, angry, sad, how they respond to trauma, etc.

Any changes under way are a blip compared to the natural climate ranges that have existed in the past, and not even close to any degrees of change that will require substantial effort to adapt to.

Did 7 billion people have to live with those natural climate changes in the past? Did they have infrastructure investment that would be utterly destroyed given even slight variations in environmental conditions?

Do you seriously think your argument has any relevance for the AGW problems we're currently facing?

No other science matches the confidence achieved in particle physics. Medicine doesn't come close. Why should we use the highest possible standard achievable for AGW when we accept far lower confidence in our highly valued medical fields?

In other words, the change in atmospheric composition is roughly .02%. That's it. It's hard to believe such a small change could make any noticeable difference at all

Hard to believe perhaps, like quantum mechanics is hard to believe. And yet, just like QM, we can reproduce the atmospheric composition in controlled laboratory conditions and check what spectrum of radiation it absorbs and what portion merely passes through. Guess what? Precisely these tests have been done.

Guess what else? The temperature increase predictions in AGW models are based on precisely the amount of additional energy absorbed by that atmopsheric composition. Where exactly did you think these numbers came from?

So in order to argue against AGW, you'll have to put on some big boy pants and either argue our entire understanding of physics is flawed, or that there some other magical energy sink no one has ever seen before that counteracts this basic physics effect. Good luck with that.

A probability wave is an actual physical thing, and not just an abstraction that describes our inability to make precise measurements. It's the very nature of the wave that the events caused by it are unpredictable.

That isn't absolutely certain. For instance, there's always superdeterminism which is something that 't Hooft is currently working on, ie. deriving quantum mechanics from deterministic cellular automota.

Sure there is. There is no model that describes what happens

That isn't justification that such a model does not exist, which is what the original claim was, it's simply justification that we do not currently know of such a model.

Current theory is that we can't do any better than that.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I'm not aware of any impossibility proof demonstrating that no model can accurately predict reality, there are simply limits on precision, like the contextuality of QM implying the uncertainty principle.

I suggest you read up on the philosophy of mathematics. Math is not what you think it is. I also suggest you read up on the Mathematical Universe hypothesis.

Good thing you're not a professor in the philosophy of science.