Help me out and point out the errors I made or the numbers I got wrong, or the bogus sources I used. I’m sorry that my sense of humor missed the mark with you. Of course a few per cent waste in power generation waste is nothing in comparison to the burning of rain forests, cement production, and fossil fuel power plants — but every little bit helps. Do you really need to add to the problem with an inefficient program?

I don’t have a horse in this race. I am a mathematician and it needs to be said that this “evidence” is absolute nonsense. The idea that a choice of programming language contributes to global climate change in any significant way is ludicrous. (I won’t even get started on those laughable computations.) It’s as silly as saying that we should all stop eating Mexican food because there are greenhouse gasses in farts. (Yes, I intentionally picked an analogy that is both ridiculous and a tiny bit offensive.)

Programming languages are tools. Most of them excel in some applications while struggling in others and we all have our preferences. That’s fine. However, making ridiculous arguments like this in the face of serious discussions makes you look like either you’re an idiot or you’re so impossibly biased that you’ll latch on to anything, no matter how absurd, that pretends to support your belief.

I’m going to stop writing this comment now because I’ve run out of synonyms for “ridiculous.”