Sustainability addin

http://labs.solidworks.com/Products/Product.aspx?name=sustainability

TOP

 

Interesting. Wonder how & how well it works.

 

Interesting. Wonder how & how well it works.

Is this the same software that has Faux "news" in such a lather?
World coming to an end, etc?

http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/23450831/the-one-thing-6-26.htm
"Cap-and-trade is about power and money"
[
And then of course. Mr. inconvenient truth himself yes Al Gore. -- venture
capital firm is heavily invested in a new software company that is making
software to help companies track their carbon footprint. -- convenient. He and
his company's. Will make a fortune.
]

If they are upset it must be a good thing indeed.

Loved their note too: "Transcript (may not be 100% accurate)".

The light at the end of the tunnel is a film crew from Faux
egging on the rabid mob of wingers trying to burn it down.

 

•• It does not matter how it works --
it is the 21st century version of "snake oil".
They will profit hugely until about 2020 when
the fascist governments are forced to
recognize that we have passed the end of
the interglacial period

- -
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk into behaving well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.

1-The stupid aren't smart enough to
follow the logic of what you say. You
have to tell them what is right in very
simple terms. If they don't agree, then
you'll never be able to change their mind.

2- the religious fanatic

If what you say goes against their
religious belief, they will cling to that
religious belief even if it means their
death."

3- There is no way to reform evil-
Not in a million years

There is no way to convince the terrorists,
anthropogenic global warming alarmists,
serial killers, paedophiles, and predators
to change their evil ways. They knew what
they were doing was wrong, but that
knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
them more careful in how they went about
performing their evil acts.

 

Next possible ice age more than 10,000 years
in the future if the cycles hold IIRC.

What's the temp in 50, 100, 200 & 400 years to be?

Wingnutz.

The light at the end of the tunnel is a film crew from Faux
egging on the rabid mob of wingers trying to burn it down.

 

•• You don't count very well. It is now 12,000
years since the end of the last ice. The
interglacial is ending.

•• That stupid question fits you well

- -
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk into behaving well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.

1-The stupid aren't smart enough to
follow the logic of what you say. You
have to tell them what is right in very
simple terms. If they don't agree, then
you'll never be able to change their mind.

2- the religious fanatic

If what you say goes against their
religious belief, they will cling to that
religious belief even if it means their
death."

3- There is no way to reform evil-
Not in a million years

There is no way to convince the terrorists,
anthropogenic global warming alarmists,
serial killers, paedophiles, and predators
to change their evil ways. They knew what
they were doing was wrong, but that
knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
them more careful in how they went about
performing their evil acts.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_ages#Glacials_and_interglacials
[
For example, an article in Nature argues that the current interglacial might be
most analogous to a previous interglacial that lasted 28,000 years. Predicted
changes in orbital forcing suggest that the next glacial period would begin at
least 50,000 years from now, even in absence of human-made global warming
]

IOW You did not check ...

 

•• Wiki is not a reliable source

•• Nature will print anything, without peer review,
that that says "global warming". Needless to say,
I give little or no credence to nature articles.- -
In real science the burden of proof is always on
the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
iota of valid data for global warming nor have
they provided data that climate change is being
effected by commerce and industry, and not by
natural phenomena.

 

The comment that wikipedia cannot be quoted as a reliable source is an
irrelevent statement, as wikipedia is not a source, but a reference.
As a reference, Wikipedia is the most vetted document on Earth.
Questionable matter is removed or flagged much faster than any other
reference or source. And since it does not allow original research,
the validity of statements within Wikipedia is verifiable via the
sited sources. Generally speaking, it is better to quote the source
itself, but in superfacial forum conversations (like this one), that
is a completely unnecessary step.

The human impact on nature has been shown repeatedly in study after
vetted study. As with any field, there are some studies that are
promoted to say something that don't really show it in their data (for
example, the overhyped saccarin cancer scare in the 1980's). However,
the overall body of evidence is clear enough for the VAST majority of
scientists to agree on at least the general points of Climate Change.
The whole idea that science (as the body of individiuals) makes up
stuff is nonsensical. Careers and fortunes are made by disrupting
popular concepts (either by disproving them or replacing them with
more reliable models). This process is part of the overall vetting
that goes on within any science.

As far as skeptics not being required to present evidence, this is
true to a point. The important portion of any study is the data
itself. It speaks for itself regardless to the conclusionary
statements of the study's writer. You can look for errors in the
data, differences in interpretation of the data, etc and make points
there that erode the value of the study. However, you cannot just
say "I don't believe your evidence, so I choose to ignore it" and
still have people respect your comments. Many high profile Global
Warming skeptics fall into the catagory of people that do just that
(similar to what anti-evolution crowd used to do before "Intelligent
Design" was proposed...of course, ID is a classic example of what
happens when a group does try to promote a study where the evidence
doesn't the writer's conclusions).

 

This application will undoubtedly succeed in its primary function:
separating the green-minded from their greenbacks.

 

•• So what! The truth in wikipedia depends on who
last edited the article. Then there is "the cooks
who spoiled the broth" syndrome. I wanted to
check the date of an event circa 1900, wiki
provided 3 articles with 3 dates and 2 men.

•• Especially when muslims or AGW Alarmists object.

 And since it does not allow original research,

•• If could spell better people might take your
argument a trifle better but as it is you are a bad
joke.

•• So far none have cut any ice.

As with any field, there are some studies that are

•• Look sucker you are not talking about "climate
change" of which you know nothing. You mean
"Global Warming" don't you, except somebody
told you it was now politically incorrect. Of
course Global warming is a myth and does not
exist. On the other hand "Climate Change" is
functioning as it has for 5 million years or more.

•• Best you start laughing.
How many of the scientists have been bought.
Wait until their funding runs out, then watch
for an huge sea change.

Careers and fortunes are made by disrupting

•• ROTFLMAO - Billions have funded any fool with
a lab coat to provide justification for anthropogenic
global warming and all have failed but that has not
prevented them from forging the results.

This process is part of the overall vetting

•• In order to pass peer review the authors of a study
must present the means and the method and
evidence that they have received the same result
at least 95 times of 100.

Then the reviewer must do the same.

•• BULLSHIT!!!

- -
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk into behaving well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.

1-The stupid aren't smart enough to
follow the logic of what you say. You
have to tell them what is right in very
simple terms. If they don't agree, then
you'll never be able to change their mind.

2- the religious fanatic

If what you say goes against their
religious belief, they will cling to that
religious belief even if it means their
death."

3- There is no way to reform evil-
Not in a million years

There is no way to convince the terrorists,
anthropogenic global warming alarmists,
serial killers, paedophiles, and predators
to change their evil ways. They knew what
they were doing was wrong, but that
knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
them more careful in how they went about
performing their evil acts.

 

What's interesting are the number of ignorant people that cannot
even bother learn what the subjects are about.
They keep spewing the same old dreck & lies over & over again
and never retract any of it or learn any better.
And the same ones wil repeat the same stuff .... or go grab more
stale old long debunked & confused lies & start all over again.
Even when the BS contradicts it's self.

Wingers must be breeding but are clearly
not being educated to think or anything.