Except Excel is less prone to errors and data loss.

There is a strong correlation between increased CO2 emissions since the Industrial Revolution and atmospheric CO2. This has been confirmed in enough different ways that I don't think it's useful to continue trying to claim otherwise (so can we all stop pretending that Mann's hockey stick graph is the only correlation point we have).

Since that correlation exists, and it's clear to just about everyone in the research community that higher CO2 emissions leads to higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2, then cutting emissions should make some difference to continued growth of said concentrations. Whether it is too late or not is a matter of some debate, though most of the reports I read suggest we still could expect some moderation of global temperatures by emissions reductions, though there will be a point in the not-so-distant future where the more severe effects will happen.

Translation: I don't know the difference between localized and global temperatures, and just post hoc cherry picking to deny global observations.

I think the modern-Neanderthal interbreeding question was never a strong consensus opinion. There were plenty of researchers on both sides of the debate, and the molecular researchers said all along that mtDNA alone would not be sufficient to falsify interbreeding.

My experience with scientists suggests that even they are often uncomfortable with consensus. I used to correspond with a taxonomist many years ago, and in many cases even the consensus view on specific categorizations could only be called a consensus by plurality.

The notion of consensus as a science-killer is heavily overplayed by those critical of science. People like Crichton really never seemed to know much about scientists at all, but were happy to paint with the broadest of strokes.

In climatology, there is a helluva lot of debate on just about every aspect of AGW, but not that AGW isn't real (the number of climatologists who outright reject AGW is so small as to be statistically irrelevant, and even among the denier climatologists, you find virtually no published papers to back up their denial). The same applies to evolution, geology, cosmology and a host of other scientists that a large fraction of certain political and religious groups reject because they run counter to belief.

There is no hiatus. It is cherry picking of data, literally cutting of centuries of statistical analysis at 20 years for the purposes of making some sort of rhetorical point. Among the last 20 years are years that are among the hottest on record.

Do you understand anything about statistics? Or are you so cowardly and infantile that you just latch on to any Koch-inspired meme that makes you feel better?

CO2 emissions are probably the easiest part of AGW modeling.

Climatologists spend lots of time assessing data. The problem with AGW is that while the overwhelming majority of researchers are in general accord, the results of their science would cost a lot of money, therefore the public debate ceases to be about data or theory, and simply about emotional appeals and pseudo-scientific trickery.

Humans need water. If I plunge your head into a tank of water and hold it there for fifteen minutes, you ought to be super healthy, right?

I spent over a decade debating Creationists on Usenet. As much as I could ever get into a science-denier's head, I have to say that they just simply are emotionally incapable of accepting certain branches of science. Whether they've been poisoned by ideology or religion, they have made science denial a core part of the intellectual and emotional makeup. They are largely infantile, emotionally insecure and have compartmentalized their cognitive processes to such an extent that the overwhelming majority of them will never ever accept the science.

What can we do? Well, if Creationism is any guide, you just have to hope you can wait them out.

The hiatus is just cherry picking by the Koch Brothers' trained seals.

The "hiatus" is nothing more than cherry picking of data.

Since broadcasting is pretty much a Federal power in Canada, I'm not sure, whatever the other flaws in Ontario's plans, whether they even have the constitutional right to do it.

In modern operating systems, the differences are in optimizations. A desktop might want to have more ticks dedicated towards foreground GUI apps (though I'm not even sure that matters is the age of multicore processors with gigs of RAM), whereas a server might want to dedicate more resources to I/O. But in most cases, at least with any software and Linux distro I've seen in the last decade, much of that can be accomplished by altering kernel and daemon parameters.

Windows does the same thing. The base kernel for Windows 8 and Server 2012 is the same; and it's licensing-triggered settings that determine specific behaviors. In an age of cheap storage costs, cheap RAM and fast processors, why in the hell would you want to ship multiple kernels/ What possible advantage would it gain, when you can just simply determine, either as an administrator, or based on licensing, the fine tuning of kernel parameters?

So many of the kernel's functions and optimizations can be altered now, there strikes me as no reason to ship entirely different kernels. Who does that any more? Even Windows kernels are largely the same, with optimizations triggered either by the registry or by the edition.

And your understanding is based exactly on what?