There are many spectacularly successful cures for cancers that simply enable the body to reverse the process that started the tumor in the first place.

My father-in-law had a 10cm lung tumour last year and in 23 days the tumor shrank 50% and was gone in 60 days. The "magic"? The juice of 1.5kg of carrots daily.

Oncologists just laugh and shake their heads because their information network doesn't have room for anything outside the feeds from their petro-chemical overlords. Yes, I said it. They're just being kept in the dark on purpose, minions in the war for the financial exploitation of the world's ignoramuses.

Get started here... and many others.

Are these people really so dense, or do they just believe that we are?

There is no consensus by long stretch, regardless of how much they say there is. Until the science, not the waffling about how great these self-appointed pseudo-scientists are, is clear and more importantly, until their computer models actually match the temperatures measured (without blatantly hacking the numbers to suit their agenda), there will be no agreement and nothing is settled .

Anecdotal. Do you have an analysis and explanation from Insurers?

I thought not.

A record for the last 65 years... Uhm, the earth is older than 100 years

Much older.

So much older that these puny little 65 years can't even be shown on a timeline that shows the earth's total existence. That alone should tell you that the claim of a record is a nutter's claim. Yes, we may not have had thermometers all around earth at the time of the Romans or earlier, but we have scientific ways of determining a lot of data from the time. So, no, it's not a record. It's a little high in a lot of recent low, that's all.

And you question: who is to profit? Well the current energy producerrs (oil) are to profit from the status quo. Alternative energy producers from a change. Now who has the most money?

Of course all incumbents will protect their business as best they can and if a newcomer tries to steal their business with fraud and corruption they are entitled to defend themselves. The fact is that the incumbents also don't have clean hands, so it's a case of Dirty Harry versus Al Capone. The bigger gangsters win.

So then it all reverts back to science. Not reporting about science. Not court cases where a pseudo scientist tries to sue his critics for defamation. Not newspapers' interpretation of science. It's all about the actual science. And to learn who's talking trash and who's correct, you have to read the research and then the criticism/reviews.

Very little of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (incorrrectly renamed "climate change" by the media) is based on proven science and most of it is based on faulty climate models that have not even once been able to actually match measured temperatures, yet they are used to predict the catastrophic collapse of the world as we know it in a few (10, 20, 50 or 100) years.

It's a pompous and preposterous, extremely arrogant claim and even more so when they drive to impose taxes on those that are much poorer that the imposers (or should I rather say imposters?) and whose very livelihoods are seriously affected by the lack of consistent low cost energy that could be available to them otherwise.

Sigh.

Of course you didn't read any of the material that shows that the postulations that the climate models that are driving the climate change hysteria are built upon are wrong, did you? You also are not aware that the IPCC reports consistently say that we just don't know and that it's all speculation, but then the catastrophist media prophets simply cite the alarmist clauses out of context and all the non-reading (and thus practically illiterate) masses go: "Eeeeh, we're all gonna fry, we're all gonna die!"

You should start with the classic take of Chicken Little... :-P

Sorry pal, but that last one has abundant scientific support and it's the AGW crowd that will be relegated to the trash can in due course.

Just because MS is noisy and nosey (requiring registration of their products) doesn't mean that they're the fastest growing or most popular overall. Ubuntu Linux is running on more than a billion devices already and that's a conservative estimate. Also, the other virtual machines solutions are fast, growing and free. Think Proxmox, LCX and more. Hey, even MS have embraced a lot of this, so it's time to rethink your assumptions, like you have with your Xen closing remark.

Below are some Ubuntu figures, check for the number of VM's fired up every minute. Seems AMD have a clue about what's happening in the market after all

http://blog.dustinkirkland.com/2015/12/more-people-use-ubuntu-than-anyone.html

http://articles.mercola.com/si...

bah!

"what its mandate is..."

You mentioned the problem quite neatly: "government-granted". The problem in the modern US is that the government has forgotten (conveniently) what it's mandate is and has taken on a life of it's own, serving only that one that can pay the most towards their election campaigns and other schemes. That's not capitalism were seeing any more, it's fascism.

The only role of government in communications is to facilitate the record keeping of where conduits and cables are underground and manage frequency (above ground). The granting of monopolies is never ever justified, albeit that in same cases defacto monopolies exists. If that is because of lack of competitors, then good for the one that has the monopoly. But if it is due to government regulation and meddling, then it must be destroyed!

Total speculation, solely based on computer models that are wrong from the ground up. Ignoring the laws of physics is always foolish, but none as much as what the warmist brigade is doing.

Carbon Neutrality is not based on science. It's based on the fertile imagination of a few, which a whole horde of lemmings following after, of which very few have actually taken the trouble to verify that the premise that underlies all the projections is valid. It turns out CO2 is a coolant, the greenhouse effect does not apply to an open system like a planet's atmosphere and there is no relationship with the amount of so-called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and global temperature, except that eventually an increase in temperature is followed by 'n rise in CO2 level. The former is definitely not caused by an increase of the latter.

So in the end all this uproar about pre-industrial levels bla bla and climate bla bla and warming bla bla bla, is just a lot of hot air.

So what, even if it did, it's conclusively proven that CO2 is not the cause of temperature fluctuations. The earth's temperature is essentially a function of pressure of the atmosphere due to gravity, plus a little influence of the sun, it seems.