Here's how I think it was done:

Looking at Figure 4 in the report, we see that input power (current) was measured independently in two places. PCE 830 A meaures current going in to the control system, and PCE 830 B measures current going from the control system to the E-Cat. (Thease mesurements are in agreement, and both show less than 1 kW going in while other measurements show more than 2 kW of heat being generated.)

The placements both PCE 830 units are strange. PCE 830 A doesn't sit directly on the 380 V input from the lab, but instead sits between the control system and a "switch" (dentoted "SW"). Similarly, PCE 830 B doesn't sit directly on the three cables going into the E-Cat. Instead it sits between the control system and "connection boxes" (denoted "C").

Anybody who has used a current clamp knows that you must measure around a single conductor. If you measure around two conductors you get the sum, which can be zero even when a large amount of power is tranferred through the cable. So if any of the wires going from the control system to the "switch" contains two conductors instead of just one, then it is possible to feed current through without it regestering on PCE 830 A. Similarly, if any of the cables going from the control system to a "connection box" contains two conductors, it is possible to send power through without it registering on PCE 830 B. (The cables that come after the connection boxes would be much harder to fake, because they connect to high-temperature Inconel conductors at the end.)

So my guess is that the "control system" contains two separate units. One works exactly as advertised. The other is powered using an extra conductor in one of the cables to the "switch". Its ouput corrent is similarly hidden using extra conductors in the wires coning to the connection boxes.

This second unit is designed to only output power under specific circumstances. (Which is why Rossi himself was controling the experiment.) For example, I found it strange that the temperature of the "dummy" reactor was always much lower than the temperature of the "working" reactor. Maybe that is the trigger.

As I recall, an earlier version of the device also produced nickel, but in the naturally occuring isotope mix. The fact that it didn't proudce the correct isotope was the main objection that the Swedish researchers had then. Now it suddenly produces Ni62, so apparently, this guy has not only discovered one, but two different cold fusion reactions...

That change in mass is far too small to measure. The random part of the change in mass due to sublimation (atoms leaving the surface when the device is hot) is much larger than the change in mass-energy.

I did not chose the years. This was a quick copy-paste from Wikipedia. I suppose they picked the intervals so that the number of observations in each bin would be about 20, which implies a standard deviation uncertainty of about 4.5 hurricanes in each interval.

But since you didn't like that table, here's one just for you:

1851–1900 13 0.26
1901–1950 29 0.58
1951–2000 46 0.92

(Each of the above intervals is 50 years, not 49. I haven't found any statistics on the correlation between being a climate change skeptic and being unable to do simple math, but I'm sure it would be interesting.)

Now, if you really wanted to raise a valid objection, you would point out that weather satellites did not exist until the 1960:s, and that the number of severe hurricanes might have been underestimated prior to that.

Also, these so-called "scientists" claim that there will be "winter" a few months from now, but the weather today is actually warmer than it was yesterday, so I'm scratching my head...

By which you mean that we had no category five hurricane last year? That's just a consequence of the fact that there is less than one per year on average, and the number must be integer. (If you do the count per decade, then 2000-2009 had the highest number (8) of category five hurricanes in recorded history, but this number is still too small to draw any statistically significant conclusions from.)

There is more information in the data on category four hurricanes. I found this table of category 4 hurricane statistics on wikipedia

Period Number Number per year
1851–1900 13 0.26
1901–1950 29 0.58
1951–1975 22 0.88
1976–2000 24 0.96
2001–2012 19 1.6

Evaporation increases exponentially with temperature, so even with a lot of extra heat going into the oceans, the change in surface temperature will not be that large. Since water vapor is lighter than air, the extra evaporation will also increase air circulation above the sea, cooling it even further.

So, don't expect to notice any difference in tempearture when you go swiming. The only change that you might notice is melting polar caps, and a massive increase in tropical hurricanes.
 

And here's the reason for that.

There will always be an insurance group for the privacy-concious and the really bad drivers.

This is one of the uses of tracking technology that I'd actually agree with, if it is opt in, and it is very clear what information you are giving up, and how much you are getting paid for it.

(The only problem is that most people have already given up all of their privacy whith their smartphones auto-posting everything they do to myspacebook, so they will accept this too cheaply. Wich means that it won't be worth it to anyone who values his privacy a tiny bit.)

That would require spending 5-10 times as much money on batteries to support the solar cells as you spent on the cells themselves.

In most places it would be cheaper to pump water up into a dam somewhere and then use a turbine to recover the electricity when needed, but that would also at least triple the cost of electricity.

The currently cheapest solution (where there's not enough hydro-power) is to have fossil fuel plants running as "spinning reserve". And that's the way it's going to be until prices of fossil fuels tipple, or we tax them to achieve that effect.

The difference being that nobody needed buggy whips anymore. People here in Germany still need electricity at night.

Because of the way the law is written, solar cell owners are allowed to use the grid as a battery. Their electricity consumption/production is not billed instantly but averaged, so that someone with enough excess solar power during the day doesn't have to pay anything for grid power during the night.

The coal, gas and nuclear plants have to vary their production to take up the slack when wind and solar go down, which is expensive, and it becomes more expensive the more renewables there are. At some points it becomes unprofitable to build, and this is where we are now.

OK.

Your assertion that it is "slightly more likely that a firearm will be used for defense rather than for committing a crime" is still wrong. Probably by a factor 10 or so.

I don't know how you arrived at that figure. The number that I find in the report that you link to is 47 140 valid defensive uses per year. (235 700 in 5 years.)

The number of times a firearm is used in commiting a crime is not in that report. What I could find was:
Number of murders involving a fierarm, according to the FBI: about 12 000 per year
Number of robberies involving a fierarm, according to the FBI: about 170 000 per year
I didn't bother looking up the numbers for things like manslaughter and aggrevated assault, but I'm sure it's a lot.

I think you misunderstood me. When I said "the people" I did not mean the Ugandan people. I have nothing against the the Ugandan people, (nor Christians or any other demographic).

By "people" I meant "persons" i.e. the relatively few individuals (American and British as well as Ugandan) who actively advocated for a death penalty for homosexuality for the stated reason that it says so in their Bible.

Yes, the vast majority of Christians condemn these extremists just as the vast majority of Muslims condemn theirs, but the "my team is better than theirs because look what they did" argument does not hold. All large population groups have the same fraction of assholes.

The law is still there. The fact that it was ruled invalid by the court does not make the people who fought to put it in place (some of whom were American) any less despicable.

My point, though, is that there are unevolved people of every religious (and non-religious) orientation. Saying that one religion is more evolved than another just because the worst of the fundamentalists have less political power is a non sequitur.

Yeah. Christians (in Uganda) only have death penalty for homosexuality. That is soo much more evolved.