I disagree with that sentiment. While it is strictly true that being a dumbass uneducated mook doesn't mean that you are wrong, it does mean that there is ample reason to ignore or at least be skeptical of thing you say. If a dumbass uneducated mook says crazy shit contrary to things said by the worldwide cadre of educated earnest scientists, then I think it is quite reasonable to ignore the dumbass uneducated mook. We don't have time to listen to the batshit insane ramblings of every dumbass uneducated mook, nor even of more than a small number of them. Sorry, Mr. Watts just isn't one of that small number, for most of us. You know, I also don't get my climate science from the homeless guy who shits in my company's doorway and talks about how ravens steal his farts.

So, then, you concur that Einstein was a journal-published doctor of the science of physics. And you agree that Watts is not journal-published and is not a doctor, nor a master, nor even a bachelor of... well according to this not of anything.

I'm not sure how you jump from "journal-published PhD" to "no credentials", can you explain that a little better? You somehow equate the credentials of a "non-established but journal-published PhD" with "non-established hack with no degree whatsoever". You know who else is a non-established hack with no degree? A few billion people who I also don't listen to when it comes to complicated science.

Watts is certainly qualified to have an opinion. Opinions are fine. It's his statements of fact which are wrong. Watts is a dum-dum spouting dum-dum nonsense and trying to heckle real scientists. It's a free country and he's allowed to do that, and people like you are allowed to have the "opinion" that he's a real smart guy, but please forgive the rest of us for disagreeing.

I think you either don't understand that statement, or don't understand science. I suspect the former; let me explain. A researcher who wants to propose a new theory which overturns a previously widely accepted theory must demonstrate extraordinary evidence, which would mean a large number of high-quality data points, large enough and high quality enough to overcome all the evidence which led to the acceptance of the previous theory.

For instance, quantum mechanics is an extraordinary claim. Nobody would believe it unless it came with a metric shit-ton of evidence, enough to overcome the entire body of scientific observations up to that point. And lo! it does come with that evidence.

The point is that evidence is not all equally valid, which is what you seem to imply. No, you can't overturn everything we know about the universe with "the same evidence as" a theory which is consistent with everything we know about the universe. I'm sure you know all of this. Perhaps you were trying to make a rhetorical point or something, but you didn't make it well.

A short term (~100yr) variation is nothing.

That's funny because I always figured the opposite was true. A million-year cycle is slow enough for life to evolve. A 100 year cycle is not. The quick change from colder to hotter is the problem.

Yes. You are correct. They are being billed for ads which are not reaching real people. Likewise, people who pay for broadcast TV commercials are billed for people who mute their televisions, or go to the bathroom during commercial breaks.

It is the responsibility of the advertiser to determine whether or not the ads they purchase are worth the money. This is a classic difficult business problem, one taught in classrooms for many many years. It's not new and it's not unique to Facbook -- but it is real and a legitimate concern.

Then you're not part of the set and your comment is off topic.

There is no "one side". Fame and riches await the first person who can convince informed scientists that AGW theory is wrong. So far, nobody has gotten that fame and riches; so far, it's just a bunch of nincompoops shilling for oil companies, able to convince some Fox News viewers, and few others.

That must be the same reason that Jews get together for Hollocaust parties.

/rolls eyes

You know, dude, my abacus has NEVER crashed, not once EVER*. Therefore, all modern computers are unreliable.

* except that time I dropped it

Only in rare circumstances. I recently heard a program about a guy who was trying to solve the Pioneer Anomaly, and he had to go find old boxes of punch cards and convert that data, in order to determine the spacecraft's exact positions when it was still in the Solar System. But yeah, pretty rare.

I assume it's the loser who gets the job at Microsoft. I wonder what the winners get?

SQL Server on Linux boxes.

Oh, god, I just vomited in the back of my throat.

You're right to be skeptical. Windows versions are like Star Trek movies: every second one sucks, then the one after that is better again. Seriously, look at this pattern:

Windows 8 (?????)
Windows 7
Windows Vista (sucked)
Windows XP
Windows ME (sucked)
Windows 2000
Windows 95 (sucked)
Windows NT
Windows 3.1 (sucked)

No! Microsoft does not deserve foregiveness. They foisted upon the world Windows for God's sake! We are still suffering that hellwhore of an operating system! No! They would have to apologize for that before they would ever deserve any sympathy.

I don't know, man. Yes, mobile is different than desktop, but each of them has an overlapping shared demographic called "web browser". My tablet does in fact stand in for my laptop often.