Did I say anything of that nature here?

Your despicable habit of attempting to attack me at every turn, and trying to turn everything into a discussion of "Greenhouse Effect" will not be forgotten.

By the way... what ever happened to your comment to me here on Slashdot that you only expected to live a few months? That was many months ago. Dishonest much?

As I stated to you before, my position on the physics from long past may not necessarily be related to my current position... but your insistence on persistently dragging up bullshit from 5 years ago only serves to muddy the waters, and makes me not want to discuss it with you.

As I told you very clearly, on many occasions: I will not debate this topic with you, because you refuse to discuss it impersonally, logically, or even honestly. I have many recorded examples I could cite, if I cared to do so. But I'm not going to bother. It will all be written up, eventually.

I concede that nucleation via cosmic rays is at this time theoretical, but heck... so is warming via CO2.

But that's all irrelevant. The point I was making was that cosmic rays and solar irradiance have (on average) a very different makeup of components.

Correction: key provisions of the Patriot Act. What most people call "the Patriot Act" was actually a collection of bills and laws, only some of which were part of the Patriot Act itself.

So yes, technically most if not all of the Patriot Act would expire... but there are other sibling laws that need to go down in flames, too, before the damage done will really be repaired.

Let's also not forget that Obama ran for office on a platform that included "I will stop domestic spying."

And as soon as he got into office, he did the opposite. As OP states, he called on Congress to pass the so-called "Freedom Act", which was really anything but. It was worse than the original in some ways.

Honestly, what it reminds me of is government a la the Progressive Left:

"Hmmm... that didn't work. So let's try more of it."

4 years later:

"Hmmm... that didn't work. So let's try more of it."

Learning to code is like learning a second language.

As someone who knows (with varying degrees of proficiency) English, French, C#, JavaScript, Perl, PHP, and VB.NET... no it isn't. Human languages are WAY harder to learn, both in terms of having far more information, and in terms of being highly irregular and unpredictable (and that's not to start on trying to understand people pronouncing things quickly and slurredly). I'm still crappy at French after 15 years, but I've learned several programming languages to a decent degree, even as an adult.

Just no.

You are confusing Solar radiation with cosmic radiation... and they are largely very different things.

The "solar wind" is largely photons and other, relatively low-energy charged particles from the sun. (Note the word "relatively".) Which is GOOD for us here on Earth. Because cosmic radiation has a much larger component of HIGH energy particles. The solar wind interacts with Earth's magnetic fields in such a way as to shield it from the cosmic high-energy particles.

But it's the cosmic high-energy particles that penetrate far enough into the atmosphere to ionize particles of matter, which form nuclei around which clouds form. So... high sunspot activity generally means fewer clouds, which in turn means it gets hotter. When "solar storm" activity is low, more cosmic rays leak in, forming more clouds, cooling the weather.

Unfortunately, it is these high-energy particles which require the most shielding. And in general, cells are more prone to damage than radiation-hardened silicon chips.

100% irrelevant to the topic I was discussing, which was ownership of U.S. uranium interests by Russia. Not only is Australia a completely different continent, its politics are also completely different. Similar in some ways, but definitely not the same.

Again, completely irrelevant to the topic under discussion. If I lived in Australia, I'd object to sales to China OR the U.S.... but especially China.

How do you claim absence of side effects?

Solar farms are already observed to fry birds and blind pilots. Not to mention the huge amount of landscape they consume. And in high latitudes, not only to they take up even more (and more ecologically sensitive) area, they aren't even usable a good part of the year. In my area, they don't even come close to competing with other sources for cost.

This causes me to think you haven't understood what the Butterfly Effect actually is. It says that slight differences in the initial conditions of some nonlinear systems can have a profound effect on later outcome. It doesn't apply to all chaotic systems by any means, nor does it necessarily mean a persistent change... just a big one. Nor, just off-hand, would it seem to apply to your windmill example at all.

You might be interested to know that the Butterfly Effect has made a profound contribution to weather and climate modeling. Without it, we would not know even the relatively small amount that we do know.

The name "Butterfly Effect" was intended as an analogy to how it works... it isn't to be taken literally. But it does work, and is observed in the real world. If you doubt that, I strongly suggest you avoid flying in a modern jet.

I disagree with others here. If they say they don't know if their organization has the talent to succeed, then indeed they don't know what they're doing.

Especially those who think their IT dept. is incompetent. What that means is (A) they are wrong, or (B) they are right... which in turn says they made bad hiring decisions and should clean house.

Labour might consider it now. With the probably long-term loss of Scotland, FPTP doesn't really give them much benefit over proportional representation, but it benefits the Tories a lot.

Cameron has a plan to get us out of Europe? Seemed like he wanted to keep us in to me.